IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8902 of 2009 Between: S.V. Koteswara Sarma ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondents 1&5: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondents 2-4: None The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8902 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in initiating land acquisition proceedings vide notification dated 31.03.1996 issued by respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to set aside the said notification. The petitioner claims to be the Archaka of Sri Someswara Swamy Temple (for short, “the Temple”), Bapatla. An extent of Ac.4.39 cents belonging to the Temple was notified for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Ac.1.46 cents out of the said notified land, as Archaka of the Temple. Draft notification was approved on 31.03.1996. Initially, enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was dispensed with. As possession was not taken within the time prescribed under Section 17(5) of the Act, enquiry was held on 01.11.1996. The Executive Officer attended the enquiry and conveyed “no objection” for acquisition of the land. Accordingly, draft declaration was approved on 20.12.1996 and the same was published on 23.12.1996. It is the case of the respondents that in pursuance of the notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act on 20.01.1997 and 17.03.1997 respectively, the Executive Officer of the Temple attended the award enquiry and thereafter 80% of the compensation was paid to the Temple. It is the further case of the respondents that possession was taken on 11.07.1997. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.25000 of 1999 in this Court for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.1.40 cents which is claimed to be in his possession. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the said Writ Petition and dismissed the same by order dated 25.01.2008. In his order, the learned Judge held that a perusal of the record summoned from the respondent shows that possession was handed over by the Executive Officer under a possession certificate to the Mandal Revenue Inspector after accepting a sum of Rs.1,59,795/- towards 80% of compensation on primary valuation amount and accordingly rejected the plea of the petitioner that due process was not followed while dispossessing him. The learned Judge further observed that as the right of the petitioner is confined to receiving compensation, his remedy is to approach the land acquisition officer, if the award is not passed and seek apportionment of compensation, if law permits such entitlement to the petitioner. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.907 of 2008, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, however, made an observation that the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law following the observations already made by the learned Single Judge. In the light of the above facts, the submission of Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that his client is still in possession of the property and that due to non-passing of the award till date, the whole land acquisition proceedings have lapsed, cannot be accepted. The petitioner having failed in the earlier round of litigation, wherein conclusive findings were rendered against him and the validity of the acquisition proceedings initiated was upheld by the learned Judge, which received affirmation by the Division Bench, is not entitled to initiate successive proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief claimed in the previous Writ Petition did not pertain to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that as the petitioner has no knowledge of the land acquisition proceedings at the time of filing Writ Petition No.25000 of 1999, he could not challenge the said proceedings in the previous Writ Petition. I am afraid, these contentions cannot be accepted for two reasons, namely; that when the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25000 of 1999, the land acquisition proceedings were already initiated by way of publication of notification and declaration and the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of these proceedings. Therefore, he ought to have challenged the land acquisition proceedings in the earlier Writ Petition. At any rate, the learned Single Judge has given categorical findings on the validity of the acquisition proceedings, which were, as noted above, confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.907 of 2008. The present Writ Petition is therefore in the teeth of these two orders. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and hence the same is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, status quo granted on 28.04.2009 is vacated and WPMP.No.11656 of 2009 is dismissed. WVMP.Nos.2075 of 2009 and 1755 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.06.2011 ES