Repeated filing of applications on settled issues constitutes an abuse of process and warrants a permanent injunction against future litigation.

The applicant, claiming to be a Sanyasi, sought land and monetary compensation for property allegedly encroached upon by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2002 for road construction

In prior proceedings (SLP (C) No. 9085 of 2016), the Supreme Court dismissed his claim on 06.07.2021, noting that he had already been allotted 0.202 hectares of land in village Malloli in 2005

Despite receiving a plot nearly double the size of the original land (21,000 sq. ft. vs 11,000 sq. ft.) and a total monetary compensation of ₹7,58,575 disbursed between 2005 and 2023, the applicant repeatedly filed miscellaneous applications, contempt petitions, and review petitions across various forums

The present application arises from a Registrar’s order dated 16.10.2025 which lodged his previous application

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to further relief or compensation regarding the land acquisition that has already been adjudicated and settled through previous court orders

2. Whether the repeated filing of applications on the same subject matter constitutes an abuse of the judicial process

The Court applied the principle of finality of litigation, asserting that once a matter has been adjudicated and the grievance remedied, the claimant cannot repeatedly approach the court for the same cause

The Court emphasized the court's inherent power to restrict "chronic litigants" from wasting judicial time under the guise of seeking justice

The Court found that the applicant’s grievances had been fully addressed: he was granted a significantly larger plot of land upon which he had already constructed an Ashram and Temple, and he had received substantial monetary compensation

The Court scrutinized the procedural history, noting that the applicant had unsuccessfully exhausted remedies through SLPs, Review Petitions, Writ Petitions in the High Court, and Contempt Petitions

The Court reasoned that the applicant was taking advantage of the indulgence previously shown to him, resulting in a "sheer wastage of precious time"

It determined that the matter had attained absolute finality and that the applicant's conduct characterized him as a chronic litigant

The Court held that no further litigation regarding this subject matter shall be entertained by any court in the future

While the Court observed that the conduct merited heavy costs, it refrained from imposing them solely because the applicant appeared in person and had adopted the life of a Sanyasi

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly