Second writ petition seeking identical relief on the same cause of action is not maintainable.

The petitioner’s father owned 2.60 acres of land in Village Janji, which was acquired by the respondent (NTPC) for a project.

The petitioner sought employment under the NTPC rehabilitation scheme in lieu of the acquired land, asserting that his representation to the authorities remained undecided.

Previously, the petitioner had filed a similar writ petition (WPS No. 1215 of 2016) seeking the same relief, which was dismissed on merits by the High Court on 26.08.2016.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming new grounds had come to his knowledge since the prior dismissal.

1. Whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief on the same cause of action is maintainable after the first petition was dismissed on merits.

The Court applied the principle of finality of judgment and the doctrine of res judicata applicable to writ proceedings.

It relied on the eligibility criteria defined in Clause 2.6.2 of the Rehabilitation Action Plan (RAP), which stipulates that permanent government/public sector employees are generally ineligible for rehabilitation benefits unless they satisfy specific residency requirements in affected villages for five years prior to the Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim for employment under the rehabilitation scheme had already been adjudicated and rejected in WPS No. 1215 of 2016.

In the previous rounding of litigation, the Court had determined that the petitioner did not meet the exception for government servants under Clause 2.6.2 because the scheme intended to benefit those actually residing and cultivating the land, creating a reasonable classification between residents and non-residents.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that "new grounds" justified a second petition, noting that the underlying cause of action and the relief sought regarding the father's land remained identical.

The Court reasoned that once a petition is dismissed on merits, the petitioner must seek alternative remedies (such as a review or appeal) rather than filing a fresh writ petition.

The Court answered the issue in the negative, stating that if the petitioner has additional grounds, he must pursue other legal remedies rather than a second writ.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit with no order as to costs.