IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29362 of 2011 Between: D. Suryanarayana Raju … Petitioner And The Govt., of India, rep., through The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Roads, Transport & Highways, New Delhi & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1,3&4: Sri S.S. Varma Counsel for respondents 2&5: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29362 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). At the hearing, Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that Writ Petition No.10269 of 2010 filed by his client in the name of a pharmaceutical company and a pharmaceutical firm questioning notification issued under Section 3G of the Act has been dismissed and that a Writ Appeal filed against the said order is pending. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act. A perusal of order, dated 06.10.2010, in Writ Petition No.10269 of 2010 would clearly disclose that all the pleas raised by the petitioner with regard to the validity of the declaration issued under Section 3G of the Act including the one relating to the validity of the order passed under Section 3C enquiry were conclusively rejected by this Court. Having thus suffered the judgment in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot once again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in order to challenge Section 3A(1) notification, which preceded Section 3G declaration. With the affirmation of Section 3G declaration, this Court has impliedly validated all the proceedings, which preceded the said declaration. Even if the petitioner has not specifically challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act, he cannot be permitted to file a separate Writ Petition, as such a Writ Petition is barred by the principle underlying Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the doctrine of constructive res judicata. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.10269 of 2010 to pursue the pending Writ Appeal. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.36344 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.11.2011 ES