reagitate the very same issue by virtue of the underlying writ petition. 9. It appears that the appellant is now trying to take advantage of the order dated 11th March, 2022 passed by the Competent Authority whereby the proceedings for forfeiture of the share of the brothers of the appellant in the property were dropped, while forfeiture of the share of the appellant was maintained. The appellant laid the challenge to the forfeiture of his share in the property before the ATFP which, by the order dated 27th August, 2024, dismissed the same on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge has extracted the order of the ATFP in Para 2.8 of the impugned order and the same is not being reproduced herein in extenso, for the sake of brevity. This order of the ATFP was challenged by way of the underlying writ petition. In the considered opinion of this Court, this exercise of the appellant appears to be an attempt to have a second bite at the cherry. This is for the reason that once the challenge to the order dated 12th August, 1993 forfeiting the share of the petitioner in the property was challenged in accordance with the law and the provisions of SAFEMA, reagitation of the very same issue on the basis of the order dated 11th March, 2020 of the Competent Authority is impermissible in law.
