Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
(2.) The order dated 29.09.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2064 of 2014 for which review is being sought reads as under:- "Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is in the third round of litigation apparently for the same relief. Herein, he has sought employment of his son Ranjeet Prasad Rawani and Raju Rawani under the Land Looser Scheme on the grounds that his raiyati land measuring 15.07 acres at Mouza Jamdahi under different plot nos. 1286, 388, 926, 348 and 381 in the district of Dhanbad, has been acquired by Bharat Coking Coal Limited-respondent Company. He has also sought quashing of the letter dated 23.12.2004 issued by the General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Chanch Victoria Area Barakar, Burdwan, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 6) where his prayer for compensation for acquisition of the land, has been rejected. He also has sought consideration of his claim afresh in the light of the direction passed in WPS No. 2279/2005 Judgment dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-12) passed by the learned Single Judge in the second writ petition. He has again sought monetary compensation for the acquisition of the land. 3. From perusal of the judgment passed in WPS No. 2279/2005 (Annexure-12), it is evident that the learned Single Judge on the said occasion was not satisfied to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the matter where petitioner was challenging the same letter dated 23.12.2004, being impugned herein also. Petitioner had made the same claim that his own raiyati land measuring 15.07 acres in Mouza Jamdahi in the said plots was acquired by the respondent Company, but no compensation was paid. It appears from perusal of the said judgment that the order dated 23.12.2004 was passed only upon a direction passed in the first writ petition WPC No. 4792/2004 vide judgment dated 13.09.2004 upon the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's claim (Annexure8). Learned Single Judge while passing judgment at Annexure-12, was of the view that the petitioner should obtain appropriate order from the competent court of law for declaring his right and title over the lands under reference as the subject matter is apparently a disputed question of fact. Petitioner seems to have again represented for employment under Land Looser Scheme vide Annexure-13 dated 20.12.2013 which the respondents have not entertained. 4. Chronology of facts which is noticed hereinabove, show that the present writ application is not maintainable when on the same plea and facts, this Court in his previous writ petition WPS No. 2279/2005 had declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the matter while making certain observations. The present writ application therefore is an abuse of the process of Court and approach of the petitioner is deprecated in filing successive writ petitions. The writ petition stands dismissed."
(3.) This court after narration of the history of two rounds of litigation apparently for the same relief, was of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable.;