IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN WRIT PETITION No.11072 of 2010 Between: Kondri Chinnaiah @ Appalaswamy. … Petitioner And: The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Rama Gopal Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from Ac.1.50 cents of land in Survey No.133/8 of Paradesipalem village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that when on an earlier occasion an attempt to dispossess the petitioner was made, he filed Writ Petition No.4230 of 2006 and that this Court by order dated 3-3-2006 directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question without following due process of law. While asserting that in pursuance of the said order the respondents are not interfering with his possession, the petitioner has, however, stated that during the third week of April, 2010 an attempt was made by the respondents to dispossess him from the said property. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition. In my opinion, as this Court has already restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner without following due process of law, the present Writ Petition filed for a similar relief cannot be maintained albeit on the plea of a fresh cause of action. The order passed by this Court is enforceable without any limit of time. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess, without following due process of law, he can take steps to effectuate the order of this Court by initiating appropriate proceedings against the respondents. Filing of successive cases for the same relief cannot be permitted as the same promotes multiplicity of litigation. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for the alleged non-compliance of the direction given by this Court by the respondents. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.14115 of 2010 is dismissed as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-11-2010 MNR