JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. After conclusive pronouncements, up to, the Hon'ble Apex Court, being rendered and where through, the initial order, rendered, on 18.11.2016, hence, under Section 163 of Himachal Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, by the learned SDO (Civil) Barsar-cum-Appellate Authority and embodied in Ext. P-2, became hence affirmed and (i) whereunder the writ petitioner, for his making, the, statutory prohibited encroachments, upon, government land, was, debarred from contesting elections to the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sour, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, rather the instant writ petition becomes instituted before this Court. 2. Visibly, hence the instant writ petition, is, hit by the doctrine of res-judicata, (a) unless the writ petitioner efficaciously demonstrates, through, tangible evidence, existing on record, that, the earlier requisite, and, relied upon, in the afore conclusive verdicts, the apposite demarcation, as, conducted, of, the relevant disputed khasra nos. was, invalidly made. In the afore endeavour, the, learned counsel, for, the petitioner makes, an, allusion, to, Annexure P-8, wherein echoing's occur, qua the settlement officer, Kangra Division, at Dharamshala, therethrough, making , a, communication, to, the Director, Land Record (i) qua, for, want of the requisite rectification, being made, in the apposite records, appertaining, to, Mohal Sour, Moja Lohdar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, the, underway therein hence settlement proceedings, becoming de-facilitated, for, completion. The afore communication, is, also referred, in, Annexure P-6 and, wherein an alike therewith communication, hence has emanated from the Land Settlement Officer, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, to, the Principal Secretary and Finance Commissioner (Revenue). Though the afore alluded Annexures, prima-facie, do, bring rather sufficient material, for, enabling the counsel for the petitioner, to contend, that, the encroachment, conducted, of, the relevant disputed khasra nos. (ii) dehors, the apposite admissions made, by, the writ petitioner and, comprised in his depositing, the, fine imposed, upon him and, dehors his executing, a, gift deed vis-a-vis, the government, rather not comprising either potent or valid admissions, (iii) given the afore admissions not condoning, the, afore legally infirm demarcation, made, of, the disputed khasra nos. as, thereupon, an, invalid demarcation, of, the disputed khasra nos. becoming untenably condoned, by this Court. 3. as, thereupon, an, invalid demarcation, of, the disputed khasra nos. becoming untenably condoned, by this Court. 3. However, the afore submissions, made, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petition, would become acceptable, only, if this Court while making, a, conclusive pronouncements in CWP No. 2995 of 2016, had, remained un-seized of the afore material or the afore material was not placed, on record, of, the afore writ petitions. However, a perusal of the verdict rendered, by this Court, especially, in, paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof, paras whereof are extracted hereinafter: "19. We really fail to understand as to how the aforesaid submissions are in any way relevant for the determination of present lis. The petitioner had nowhere disputed the extent, area or even the place of his encroachment and simply in order to get over the bar of contesting the election to the post of Pradhan had immediately surrendered the encroached land and deposited the compensation alongwith costs. 20. At no stage did the petitioner entertain any doubt or misapprehension or misconception of the land over which his encroachment existed. In fact, he admitted not only before the revenue authority but even before this Court that he had encroached over the Government land but had thereafter surrendered the same and had also paid the compensation and the costs. Now, therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to say that because of discrepancies and various shortcomings in the settlement operation, he was not aware of the encroachment. (i) does make clear up-surging, qua, the afore submissions, becoming addressed earlier before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, theirs becoming rejected. Consequently, given the rejection, of, the afore made submissions, earlier by this Court, through, a decision, becoming made upon CWP No. 2995 of 2016, hence also renders, the, afore facets, rather becoming construable, to stand clinchingly, finally, and, completely adjudicated, upon, and, thereupon, the, principle of res-judicata, hence barring, the, writ petitioner, to, re-espoused, the, afore parameters, or facets, or to espouse, for a re-verdict being made, thereon, becomes fully attracted here-at." 4. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition, and, the same is dismissed. Also, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.