IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8302 of 2010 1. KUNDAN KUMAR S/O SHRIKANT SHARMA R/O VILL.- DHIBAR, P.S.- PANDARAK, DISTT.- PATNA – Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR PATNA 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BARH, PATNA 3. THE MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES N.T.P.C. LTD., BARH (PATNA)- Respondents. ----------- 2 25.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award by which he claims that adequate compensation has not been granted to him as the acquiring authorities have demolished the house and looted the property in the garb of land acquisition meant for National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Barh. The father of the petitioner had filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 13973/2005 which was dismissed. Thereafter LPA No. 288/2007 was filed. That too was dismissed. The present petitioner had also come to this court claiming that he was a minor at the time the said proceeding was initiated. CWJC No. 13973/2005 was ultimately decided and liberty was given to the petitioner to file a review of the of the Division Bench, order dated 12.4.2007 passed in LPA No. 288/2007. In the mean time the petitioner filed LPA No. 412/2010 which was dismissed of on 20.4.2010. While dismissing the appeal the court held as follows : “The appellant made a feeble attempt to urge that it was done to favour one Narendra Kumar Singh @ Bogo Singh. Once we have held that the proper route for the water pipeline are technical matters which the court is not competent to interfere with and the 2 petitioner has chosen but not to place any further material on record in support of his allegations that it was done to favour another and leaves it as a bald and vague proposition, this court finds it difficult to consider that plea.” This fresh writ petition has been filed wherein the petitioner basing his claim on Annexure 4 and submits that the writ court had passed the order on the basis of the assumption that the Corporation had approved the change of rules, cannot be raised for the third time in this court. Not only the principle of res judicata applies in this case, rather the court must take into account the view of the Division Bench in LPA No. 412/2010 noted above. I find that the petitioner cannot raise those issues again and again by filing this writ petitions. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)