JUDGMENT A.S. OKA, J. 1. The substantive prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the prayer clause (a) which reads thus:“( a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ of direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing and ordering the Respondents Nos.4 to 7, the collector of Thane and State of Maharashtra, to delete the name of Deputy Custodian of Evacuee property from the Record of Rights pertaining to property bearing Pardi No.11, Hiss No.5, C.T.S. No.1045 to 1056.” 2. The Petitioners claimed that their predecessor Abus Salam Maqba was the purchaser of the property in dispute who transferred the property in the name of his wife Sharifabibi under a Gift Deed. In the year 1954, the Mamlatdar, Thane, without notice to the predecessor of the Petitioners made an entry in the revenue records in respect of the said property in favour of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property. The contention of the Petitioners seems to be that there is no document on record to show that the property was declared as an evacuee property under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The record shows that the said property along with certain other properties were allotted to one Shri Shivandas Hotaldas Sachdeo on account of his claim as an evacuee from Pakistan. The predecessor of the Petitioners Smt. Sharifabibi died on 6th October 1982. In a Writ Petition filed by one Parwani, who was claiming through Shivandas, this Court passed an order directing the authorities to hand over vacant possession of the property in dispute. The said order was recalled and the Authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner was directed to decide the said issue of the rights claimed by the said Parwani. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner passed an order dated 23rd June 2003 directing that the allotment order dated 6th February 1965 in favour of the said Shivandas shall be implemented. The Revision Applications were preferred against the said order which were disposed of by an order dated 31st December 2005. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner passed an order dated 23rd June 2003 directing that the allotment order dated 6th February 1965 in favour of the said Shivandas shall be implemented. The Revision Applications were preferred against the said order which were disposed of by an order dated 31st December 2005. The operative part of the order passed in the Revisions Applications reads thus:“ This order partially modifies the order passed by the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties Cum Custodian of Evacuee Properties, Maharashtra State on 23.6.2003, which confirms the order dated 6.2.2003, which confirms the order dated 6.2.1965 and asks for its implementation in favour of Shri Shivandas Hotaldas. This authority find the claim of Shri Shivandas Hotaldas to be of only presumptive value, and not a conclusive fact. The order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 23.6.2003, thus stands modified to that extent. Parties to the case maybe informed accordingly.” 3. It appears that the said two orders were subjected to challenge by different parties by filing various Writ Petitions in this Court which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the Judgment and Order dated 7th December 2007. In the said Judgment and Order, the learned Single Judge observed that the issue whether the properties were evacuee properties or not was never raised and the matter was proceeded on the basis of the letter of allotment dated 6th February 1965. The learned Judge observed that in the circumstances, when the letter of allotment was acted upon substantially, there was no occasion to give a direction to the parties to approach the revenue authorities. Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to modify the order of the Revisonal Authority insofar as it differs with the Chief Settlement Commissioner on this issue. In Paragraph 28 of the Judgment and order, it is observed that when the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the order dated 6th February 1965 issued in favour of the said Shivandas should be implemented, unless something grave and serious was pointed out so as to vitiate the entire process, it was not necessary for the revisional authorities to have doubted the authenticity of the letter of allotment. Therefore, while disposing of the Petition, the learned Single Judge made the following observations:“ The heirs also need not approach the revenue authorities in sofar as this aspect is concerned. Therefore, while disposing of the Petition, the learned Single Judge made the following observations:“ The heirs also need not approach the revenue authorities in sofar as this aspect is concerned. The order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, therefore, holds the field and in sofar as the heirs of late Shivandas are concerned, the letter of allotment must be implemented. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. However, it is clarified that the directions in this writ petition shall not in any manner prevent Shri R.T. Parwani from approaching the competent civil court on the aforesaid issue nor shall it prevent the said Makba from also approaching the competent civil court with regard to the authenticity and genuineness of the deed of assignment and asserting such rights in the property as are permissible in law. Shri Makba is claiming land survey no.14 of village Kalwa, District Thane. His claim is on the basis that the property is his ancestral property and cannot be allotted to Shivandas Hotaldas Sachdev. As and when such issue is raised by him, it would be open for the heirs, if they are impleaded as parties or Shri R.T. Parwani to urge that the civil Court cannot reopen the said issue and that it will have no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the property concerned is evacuee property or not. Such pleas are kept open to be raised and remained unaffected by the present order.” ( Underlines supplied ) 4. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the present Petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.174 of 2009 in this Court claiming the same substantive relief which has been claimed in this Petition. On the prayer made by the Petitioners, the said Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to apply for clarification of the aforesaid order dated 7th December 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. On 30th September 2011, by holding that there is no ambiguity, the said application for clarification was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said order was not challenged by the Petitioners and now this fresh Petition has been filed claiming identical relief which was claimed in Writ Petition No.174 of 2009. 5. On 30th September 2011, by holding that there is no ambiguity, the said application for clarification was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said order was not challenged by the Petitioners and now this fresh Petition has been filed claiming identical relief which was claimed in Writ Petition No.174 of 2009. 5. Now the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted in view of the express statutory provisions and, therefore, there is no remedy available to the Petitioners to approach the Civil Court. His submission is that even as of today, there is no document available on record to show that the property was declared as an evacuee property under the said Act of 1950. He, therefore, submitted that in absence of any document to show that it was declared as an evacuee property, the entries made in the revenue record way back in the year 1954 in the name of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property will have to be set aside and the name of the predecessor of the Petitioners will have to be restored. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As pointed out earlier, the Chief Settlement Commissioner by order dated 23rd June 2003 accepted the validity of the letter of allotment dated 6th February 1965 in favour of Shivandas and directed that the same shall be implemented. The letter of allotment proceeds on the footing that Shivandas was allotted the said property on account of his claim as evacuee from Pakistan. The order passed by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner was modified in the revision by the State Government by holding that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which confirms the allotment order dated 6th September 1965 will mean that the claim of Shivandas will be of a presumptive value and not a conclusive fact. However, in Writ Petition No.5732 of 2006 and other connected Petitions, by judgment and order dated 7th December 2007, this Court modified the order in revision by observing that neither before the Chief Settlement Commissioner nor before the Revisional Authority, a dispute was raised that the property was never declared as an evacuee property and the matter proceeded on the basis of the letter of allotment dated 6th February 1965. In the context of the argument made before the learned Single Judge that the letter of allotment was itself not genuine, while passing the Judgment and Order dated 7th December 2007, the learned Single Judge clarified that it will be open for the parties including the Petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court on the issue of authenticity and genuineness of the deed of assignment and for asserting such rights in the property as are permissible in law. In fact, in the said order, the learned Judge referred to the contention of the Petitioners that the property was their ancestral property. What was kept open by the learned Single Judge was the contention of the Petitioners in a suit which may be filed by Shri R.T. Parwani to urge that the Civil Court cannot reopen the issue. As stated earlier, the application for seeking clarification of the said order made by the Petitioners has been dismissed. 7. The scenario which emerges is that the Writ Petition No.174 of 2009 was filed by the Petitioners claiming identical relief which was claimed in this Petition. Perusal of the order dated 28th July 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.174 of 2009 shows that a statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners was recorded that the Petitioners desire to apply for review/modification/clarification of the order dated 7th December 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. The first paragraph of the said order reads thus: “We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will apply to learned Single Judge (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) for review/modification/clarification of his order dated 7th December 2007. Learned counsel submitted that under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 remedy of a civil suit is barred. He states that the petitioners want to point out this to learned Single Judge. He states that he, therefore, has instructions to withdraw the petition. In the circumstances the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such.” 8. Thus, while dismissing the Petition as withdrawn, only liberty is reserved by this Court to the Petitioners was to apply for review/modification/clarification of the order dated 7th December 2007. There was no liberty to file a fresh petition claiming the same relief in a new Petition. 9. Thus, while dismissing the Petition as withdrawn, only liberty is reserved by this Court to the Petitioners was to apply for review/modification/clarification of the order dated 7th December 2007. There was no liberty to file a fresh petition claiming the same relief in a new Petition. 9. In this view of the matter, we cannot entertain this Petition claiming identical relief which was claimed in Writ Petition No.174 of 2009. We, accordingly, reject the Petition.