JUDGMENT : K. N. PHANEENDRA, J. 1. Though the case is posted for hearing on I.A.Nos.2/2019 and 3/2019, the contesting parties have agreed for disposal of the petition itself on merits. 2. Sri A.M.Nagaral, learned advocate takes notice for respondent No.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Though respondent Nos.4 and 7 served, they remained absent. 3. The petitioner has sought for following reliefs in these writ petitions: 1. Issue a writ or order or directions in the nature of certiorari and quash the no objection certificate dated 10.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 in file No.KIADB/13/BDR/DO/370/2018-19 which is produced at Annexure-N; 2. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the lease cum sale agreement dated 27.12.2013 bearing document No.7170/2013-14 executed by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.1 as illegal which is produced at Annexure-H. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that plot Nos.119 to 124 of Basavakalyan Industrial Area were allotted to the petitioner i.e. M/s Basava Bharathi Plastic Industries and it appears, it has been running an industry in the said plots. It is also the contention of the petitioner that plot No.71/P1 was allotted to respondent No.1 and thereafter behind and back of the petitioner without its knowledge instead of plot No.71/P1, plot bearing No.124/P of Basavakalyan Industrial Area measuring 1,000 sq. mtrs. was allotted to respondent No.1 by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (in short 'KIADB'). It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.202469/2014 for various reliefs, i.e. for quashing of the lease-cum- sale agreement dated 27.12.2013 which is also sought in this case as per second prayer. Another direction by way of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner with reference to allotment of excess portion of the land in the said plot bearing No.124/P. After contest the said writ petition was disposed of. I will come to that part little later. 5. Another direction by way of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner with reference to allotment of excess portion of the land in the said plot bearing No.124/P. After contest the said writ petition was disposed of. I will come to that part little later. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before disposal of the said writ petition, in fact action was taken for cancellation of the said plot bearing No.124/P on various grounds by the KIADB as per Annexure-M and also as per Annexures-J and K on the ground that, there was some discrepancy with regard to existence of the said plot. Therefore, he contended that having taken such action KIADB has issued a No Objection Certificate as per Annexure-N which is challenged before this Court. The said Annexure-N discloses that on 10.10.2018 No Objection Certificate regarding power connection was issued to the respondent No.1 in respect of plot No.124/P. Therefore he contends that issuance of Annexure-N is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has submitted that, this writ petition is not maintainable so far as second prayer is concerned as the same prayer was already been not pressed by the petitioner in the previous writ petition. Further, it is contended by the respondents that, the petitioner himself has filed a suit before the Civil Court and sought for injunction so far as this plot No.124/P is concerned, on the same ground as alleged in this writ petition. O.S.No.185/2015 was filed much earlier to the filing of the above said writ petition. In fact petitioner has also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. After hearing in detail, the trial Court has rejected the said application considering the existence of plot No.124/P and also considering the defence taken by the defendants in the said case with regard to his possession and enjoyment of the plot. Therefore, when he has failed in the original suit to get an injunction order, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. The petitioner if possible to stall the business of the respondent. Therefore, it is pleaded that petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Therefore, when he has failed in the original suit to get an injunction order, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. The petitioner if possible to stall the business of the respondent. Therefore, it is pleaded that petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. It is also contended that after the representation given by the petitioner, the KIADB has in fact measured the property and found the existence of plot No.124/P and they have made distinction that the plots allotted to the petitioner and respondent No.1 are altogether different. Therefore, the respondents have pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On careful perusal of the above said rival contentions and after perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute regarding allotment of five plots to the petitioner i.e. plot No.119 to 124. of course, the petitioner is right in submitting that as per Annexure-A, there is no plot bearing No.124/P in that layout, but it is contended that in the same area abutting to the plots allotted to the petitioner on the eastern side of the petitioners plots, a plot was allotted to the respondent No.1 which is marked as 124/P. Therefore, it is clear that no plot is allotted to the respondent No.1 which virtually allotted to the petitioner herein i.e. plot Nos.119 to 124. Therefore, altogether distinct and separate plot is allotted as per order passed by the competent authority. As per Annexures-M, J and K produced before the Court, in those letters also existence of plot No.124/P is not denied by the authorities. In fact they have categorically issued notice as per Annexure-M that the respondent No.1 should not construct any building in the said plot No.124/P and further in Annexure-J and K, it is further stated that if any such industries are being run in the said plots, it will cause health hazards to the surrounding area and further that plot No.124/P has not been denied as not in existence. Likewise, in Annexure-J also it is stated that, there is discrepancy with regard to existence of that plot in KIADB area wherein the plots bearing Nos.119 to 124 were allotted to the petitioner. Apart from the above, rival contentions have been placed before the trial Court in O.S.No.185/2015. Likewise, in Annexure-J also it is stated that, there is discrepancy with regard to existence of that plot in KIADB area wherein the plots bearing Nos.119 to 124 were allotted to the petitioner. Apart from the above, rival contentions have been placed before the trial Court in O.S.No.185/2015. Petitioner has sought for an injunction order to restrain the defendant/respondent No.1 herein not to make any development and construct any structure over plot No.124/P of KIADB Basavakalyan and also for issuance of direction to the defendant not to make any development and to stop construction in the said area. After hearing in detail, the trial Court has rejected the said application in I.A.8, filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear though it is disputed before this Court with regard to existence of the plot bearing No.124/P but the above said documentary material available on record prima facie tentatively shows the existence of plot No.124/P but the urge of the petitioner is that it should not be developed and no industry should take place in the said plot. Therefore, it goes without saying that the respondent No.1 has entered into the plot according to the alleged allotment made by the KIADB, whether the said plot is in existence or not, in fact, still has to be thrashed out in the duly constituted suit pending between the parties after full dressed trial, to that extent the plaintiff may amend his plaint if need arises. Further in the above said facts and circumstances, granting of no objection itself, in my opinion, cannot be find fault with the competent authorities. Because the authorities have categorically awarded the said plot in favor of respondent No.1. When once it is found that the existence of plot No.124/P and the same was allotted to the respondent instead of plot No.71/P, it is the burden on the petitioner to establish the non existence of the said portion in the duly constituted suit. On the other hand, as I have already noted that he has only prayed for restraining the defendant therein not to develop anything in the said plot. Therefore, existence of plot for the present is tentatively established, but later if the Court comes to the conclusion, there is no existence of said plot, the Court can pass appropriate orders on merits of the suit. 9. Therefore, existence of plot for the present is tentatively established, but later if the Court comes to the conclusion, there is no existence of said plot, the Court can pass appropriate orders on merits of the suit. 9. Lastly, before concluding it is seen from the orders passed by this Court earlier very peculiar enough, the first prayer which was sought for quashing of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 27.12.2013 was not pressed into service and therefore, the Court has specifically stated that the first prayer would not survive for consideration. Therefore, in view of the said order the second prayer, so far as this petition is concerned automatically vanishes. The petitioner claims the said relief repeatedly. Though principles of res-judicata is not applicable but the species of res-judicata can be equally pressed into service in this particular case to hold that the prayer which has already deemed to have been rejected cannot be prayed once again. Further added to that, in the previous order, virtually respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not contested the writ petition as they remained absent. Therefore, there is no question of they undertaking that the plot bearing No.124-P allotted to respondent No.1 will be cancelled in any manner. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, it is made clear that the whole of the dispute between the parties can be thrashed out by actively participating in the suit filed between the parties as the petitioner has already moved the trial Court for granting injunction and the same has been refused. It may not be proper on the part of this Court by indirectly making such an order of the Civil Court infructuous. Under the above said circumstances, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. Liberty is provided to the parties to agitate their remedy before the civil Court. 10. The electricity power, if any, granted earlier to these writ petitions and disconnected due to the stay order granted, has to restored by the competent authorities.