Rajesh Bindal J.— A bunch of appeals pertaining to acquisition of land pertaining to village Maloya, Union Territory, Chandigarh, acquired vide notification dated 4.4.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were heard and decided by this court on 8.5.2012 vide a detailed order passed in RFA No. 3191 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Gurdev Singh. While going through the files, when the short orders in all the connected appeals were being typed, it was found that some of the landowners have filed two appeals against the same award. Out of six landowners in LAC No. 234 of 2008, four namely Smt. Sumitra Devi, Rajpal, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Raj Rani filed two appeals bearing RFA No. 1033 and 4117 of 2010. The landowners in LAC No. 236 of 2008, filed two appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1032 and 5050 of 2010. Considering the fact that two appeals against the same award by the same landowner (s) could not be filed, the matter was directed to be listed in court after intimation to counsel for the appellants. Today vide a separate order, the order dated 8.5.2012 disposing of the appeals, passed in RFA Nos. 1032, 1033, 4117, 5050 of 2010, has been recalled. At the time of hearing, learned counsels for the landowners did not dispute the fact that two appeals were filed against the same award by some of the land owners. The counsel, who had dealt with the case in the court below, stated that she had been instructed to file appeals and even professional fee was also paid. Whereas the other counsel submitted that as he was given the power of attorney, he filed the appeals accordingly. However, while tendering unconditional apology, he sought to withdraw the appeals filed by the landowners subsequently. After hearing learned counsels for the landowners, RFA Nos. 4117 and 5050 of 2010 are permitted to be withdrawn. However, the same shall be subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000/- each in both the appeals as costs, with the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of three months. In case of non-compliance, the matter be placed before the court. As far as claim of the landowners in RFA Nos. 1032 and 1033 of 2010 is concerned, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the same is covered by judgment of this court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra). In case of non-compliance, the matter be placed before the court. As far as claim of the landowners in RFA Nos. 1032 and 1033 of 2010 is concerned, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the same is covered by judgment of this court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1032 and 1033 of 2010 are disposed of in the same terms. As this may not be a case in isolation where the landowners have filed more than one appeal against the same award, a fool proof system is required to be evolved to see that this is not repeated in future. As in a writ petition the petitioner is required to mention that he has not filed any similar writ petition in this court or in Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It is supported by affidavit. In revisions, appeals and other category of cases as well, filing of affidavit containing such a statement by the parties concerned is required because mere mentioning thereof in the grounds of revision, appeal, etc. signed by the counsel may not be sufficient. The matter for the purpose be placed before the Rules Committee, after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.