IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9100 of 2009 1, Ram Prasad Mehta, 2. Parmeshwar Mahta, 3. Rameshwar Mehta, 4. Kameshwar Mehta, all of Satanpatti, PS Ratanpura, Dist. Supaul. 5. Kusheshwar Mehta, 6. Laxman Mehta, both sons of Late Kishun Mehta, village Satanpatti, PS Ratanpura, Dist. Supral. 7. Kabetari Devi @ Savitri Devi, wife of Chitnarain Mehta, village Satanpatti, PS Ratanpura, Dist. Supaul. 8. Bibi Ainul, wife of Sheikh Zuman, village Narpatpatti, PS Ratanpura, Dist. Supaul – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Supaul. 3. Commission, Kosi Division, Saharsa. 4. Land Registration Officer, Birpur, Supaul. 5. Sheikh Majid, son of Late Aatullah, village Narpatpatti, PS Ratanpura, Dist.Supaul – Respondents. 2 7.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners claim title over the land in question which was settled to the raiyat under section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration Of Land Reforms) Act, 1951. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Supaul which was dismissed on 29.12.2001. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioners filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 11056/2003 which was dismissed by order, dated 12.3.2004 by passing the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the parties. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. “This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.” After the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner filed T. S. No. 52/2004. That too was dismissed on the ground that no suit 2 is maintainable for the reliefs sought by the petitioners. Being aggrieved with the order passed in the title suit the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 798/2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.6.2008 by the following order : “Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. “Permission is accorded and this application is dismissed as withdrawn.” After the withdrawal of the civil revision application the petitioners filed an appeal challenging the order passed in the title suit. The District Judge, Saharsa dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction as the appeal would not be maintainable, where there is no jurisdiction to hear the suit itself. Finally, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Collector on 29.12.2001. This court finds that the order, dated 29.12.2001 has already been challenged by the petitioners in CWJC No. 11056/2003. A second writ with respect to the same relief shall not be maintainable and is barred by the principles of res judicata. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)