JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, C.J. (Oral).:- This judgment shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions as the common question of law and facts is involved therein. 2. On 03.02.2010, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 seeks and is granted four weeks time finally to furnish the survey report as directed by this Court vide order dated November 04, 2009. List again on April 05, 2010.” 3. Inspite of that, respondent no.5 Haryana Urban Development Authority has not filed the survey report. 4. The prayer made in the writ petition is as follows:- “i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for direction to respondents to enquire the entire matter and take legal action against the erring officials as per the law. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for recovery of the amount, which has caused loss due to the negligence of the officials of the HUDA authority/Land Acquisition Collector office, Panchkula. iii) to give a direction to any independent agency to enquire into the entire matter. iv) any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 5. The writ petitioner has himself averred in the pleadings that some of the persons affected by the acquisition have already challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act where interim orders have been granted in favour of such writ petitioners. In so far as petitioner’s locus is concerned, the averments have been made in para No.1 of the petition, which is to the following effect:- “ That the petitioner is a resident of Panchkula and being a citizen of India, he is entitled to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition. The present petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation.” 6. From the aforesaid averments, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not been able to establish his locus except the fact that he is a resident of Panchkula. Since the matter is already pending in this Court as well as in the Civil Court, no case for entertaining the present writ petitions as public interest is made out because the public interest litigation is not a collateral route when legal proceedings qua the same dispute are pending in various Courts. Since the matter is already pending in this Court as well as in the Civil Court, no case for entertaining the present writ petitions as public interest is made out because the public interest litigation is not a collateral route when legal proceedings qua the same dispute are pending in various Courts. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. --------------