ORDER : Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the inaction of the respondents in mutating her name in the revenue records and issuing a pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.26 guntas in Survey Nos. 80, 80/A and 80/B situate at Shanthinagar, Hyderkhanguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal & District, in spite of the written representation submitted by her on 28.10.2014, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to issue pattadar pass book and title deed. 2. The representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner is dated 28.10.2014, but however, it has been received in the Collectorate on 29.10.2014. In less than 10 days' time thereafter, the present Writ Petition is filed on 07.11.2014. 3. It is brought to my notice that earlier, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 23679 of 2014 in this Court challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, in his proceedings, bearing No. E3/2826/2014, dated 28.07.2014, whereby he has not conceded to the request of the petitioner to grant necessary certificate of patta after mutation of her name in the revenue records. That Writ Petition has been heard by My learned Brother Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar and it has been dismissed by his judgment dated 15.09.2014. During the course of the said order, the learned Judge has noted that the father of the husband of the petitioner, namely Sri Abdul Rasheed Khan has initiated a Land Grabbing Case in LGC No. 2 of 1996 against the Principal of Little Flower School for recovery of certain land from him. That LGC was dismissed on 25.10.2000 and the Appeal preferred there against was also dismissed holding that the father of the husband of the petitioner sold away the entire extent of land situate in Survey No. 80 to Little Flower Vignana Mandir and consequently, no land was left over for the husband of the petitioner to succeed and this fact was reflected in the revenue records continuously from 1971 to 2013-14. As per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the Joint Collector, in his order dated 28.07.2014 noted that the total extent of the land available in Survey No. 80 of Nalgonda Town is recorded as Ac. As per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the Joint Collector, in his order dated 28.07.2014 noted that the total extent of the land available in Survey No. 80 of Nalgonda Town is recorded as Ac. 1.20 guntas and it is classified as 'patta land'. Similarly, the total extent of land available in Survey No. 79 is recorded as Acs. 3.14 guntas, which is classified as 'government khariz-e-khata'. The father of the writ petitioner's husband along with eight others sold away the land of a total extent of Acs. 22.28 guntas including the land of an extent of Ac. 1.20 guntas, in Survey No. 80. Those particulars were also recorded. It should also be noted that the husband of the writ petitioner herein filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 12 of 2007 seeking a perpetual injunction insofar as 900 square yards is concerned before the Junior Civil Judge's Court which suit was dismissed as the petitioner or her husband were not found to be in possession of the said land. The husband of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2961 of 2010 before this Court against the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records as well as the District Collector complaining of unlawful possession of the land in Survey No. 80 to an extent of Ac. 2.20 guntas. Though this Court granted an interlocutory relief on 18.02.2010 in that Writ Petition, subsequently, that order was dissolved. Then Writ Appeal No. 878 of 2010 was filed, which Appeal was dismissed by this Court. Having thus far noted the litigative history, in paragraph 6, my learned Brother has recorded as under: "It is evident from the above discussion that the petitioner has been repeatedly approaching this Court and perpetuating the litigation in spite of finality having been reached to the various proceedings under the land grabbing case as well as before this Court, as referred to above. On a deeper examination also, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has any remotely sustainable claim in view of the adjudication already having reached finality against her, as referred to above. The order impugned, passed by the Joint Collector, therefore, being clearly based on merits and revenue records, I find no reason to entertain the Writ Petition." 4. On a deeper examination also, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has any remotely sustainable claim in view of the adjudication already having reached finality against her, as referred to above. The order impugned, passed by the Joint Collector, therefore, being clearly based on merits and revenue records, I find no reason to entertain the Writ Petition." 4. However, when the present Writ Petition is filed, in paragraph 8, the following statement is made: "I have not filed any writ or instituted any other legal proceedings in respect of similar relief as prayed for in this Writ Petition." 5. The petitioner is required to disclose the factum of her instituting Writ Petition No. 23679 of 2014, which was dismissed on 15.09.2014, while instituting this Writ Petition. 6. When I confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shaik Jilani, as to why the information has not been furnished to this Court in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the learned counsel turned emotional and stated that the petitioner is a surrendered naxalite and that she has been fighting for justice and that she is entitled to litigate till such time justice is secured to her. 7. I am afraid, the approach adopted by the writ petitioner is not in accord with the principles on the subject. Justice is liable to be rendered in accordance with law, but not in terms of the notions entertained by the litigative parties. When once this Court has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Collector refusing to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of the land lying in Survey No. 80, of an extent of Ac. 1.20 guntas, the petitioner is forbidden from raking up the same issue all over merely changing the form of the prayer. The substantive right of the petitioner to secure a pattadar pass book and a title deed for the land lying in Survey No. 80 of Nalgonda Town has been adjudicated in the earlier Writ Petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, the remedy lies in carrying the matter in appeal, but not by instituting a separate Writ Petition. Such an approach is clearly barred by the principle of res judicata enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which principle, is rendered applicable even to the writ proceedings. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, the remedy lies in carrying the matter in appeal, but not by instituting a separate Writ Petition. Such an approach is clearly barred by the principle of res judicata enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which principle, is rendered applicable even to the writ proceedings. The principle of res judicata is not a technical one, but rested upon a jurisprudential principle that all litigation must necessarily end at one point of time or the other and it cannot be perpetuated in eternity. I am therefore, not able to concede to the appeal of the learned counsel for the petitioner that till such time the justice, as perceived by the writ petitioner or by her counsel is rendered by this Court, one is entitled to indulge in litigation. This apart, the petitioner is required to disclose the information faithfully, otherwise, the very sanctity of the proceedings would be lost. For sheer suppression of the material information in this regard, in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. Petition dismissed