Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— The petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the correctness of the merit of the judgments in relation to the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. 2. Sri P.N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said proceedings were without jurisdiction as the consolidation proceedings had intervened. He submits that jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter as such the order impugned has been rightly assailed through this writ petition. 3. This petition seeks quashing of the orders dated 12.4.2005, 31.1.2006 and 23.1.2007. The petition is obviously barred by laches. 4. To explain this learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter had been earlier contested on the restoration application and it is after the finalisation of the same that the petitioner has now come up to challenge the orders on merit. 5. The matter had come up before this Court at the instance of the petitioner himself in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8443 of 2008. The judgment is extracted herein below: "Pleadings have been exchanged in this matter. Learned Counsel for all the parties are present. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the revisional order passed by the Commissioner dated 23.11.2007 by which the revisional authority after having examined the matter has come to the conclusion that the correct shares have been demarcated in favour of both the petitioner as well as the respondents. It is the petitioner's claim that the petitioner was entitled to get the entire land of Khata No.414A in Vilalge Patti Chaudharan, Thana Bhawan, Tehsil Samli, District Muzaffar Nagar on the basis of a registered will deed executed by his grand father Mam Chand on 19.12.1991 in favour of the petitioner. The whole case of the petitioners rests on the registered will. The Court below has clearly recorded that on the date when the will was made by the petitioners late grand father, who died in the year 1998, he did not have the right to transfer the said land in view of the provisions of Section 170 of UPZA & LR Act. Therefore, the very foundation of the case of the petitioner goes. Therefore, the very foundation of the case of the petitioner goes. Even otherwise, it has not come anywhere on record that the petitioner has taken recourse to file any proceedings to succeed under the registered will or that the validity of the registered will has been tested at any time. The Court below has, therefore, not accepted the contention of the petitioner. The plea taken by the petitioner that the matter was pending before the consolidation Court also does not hold any water. Learned Counsel for the respondent has, therefore, rightly argued that although the petitioner had tried to impose a registered will the validity of the same was never established and, therefore, the Courts below have rightly ascertained the shares of the two parties, who are collateral. Hence, the order passed by the revisional Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs." 6. A perusal of the aforesaid it appears that a relief in relation to the suit for partition was argued as a result whereof the Court has taken a view finally deciding the dispute against the petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 7. Sri P.N. Singh submits that this issue on merits was not raised in the writ petition and therefore the decision will not operate adversely or have any binding effect on the petitioner in the present proceedings. He relied on the judgment in the case of Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1013 . 8. Having perused the same the aforesaid judgment was in relation to the non-applicability of the said principle in matters arising out of waiver of fundamental rights. In the instant case there is a decision on the claim of the petitioner for partition which was decided by the judgment of the High Court that intervened on 17.5.2013 extracted herein above. 9. It is therefore clear that it is a case of resjudicata and not a case of fundamental right or its waiver. 10. The petitioners having already contested the said claim in the writ petition referred to herein above cannot be allowed to say that the said issue has neither been raised nor was required to be decided. 9. It is therefore clear that it is a case of resjudicata and not a case of fundamental right or its waiver. 10. The petitioners having already contested the said claim in the writ petition referred to herein above cannot be allowed to say that the said issue has neither been raised nor was required to be decided. There is yet another principle which does not allow this Court to proceed with this writ petition namely if co-ordinate Board has already dealt with the same issue in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution then it is not open to any other learned Single Judge to enter into the merit of the same claim between the same parties on another circumvented cause. 11. The writ petition therefore is not maintainable. It is barred laches and also by principles of resjudicata. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. _____________