HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27359 of 2011 Date : 15-11-2011 Between: Mehmood Ali Khan .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner: Mohd. Rasheeduddin Aziz Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside award No.15/2010-11, dated 12-8-2010. The petitioner was the owner of Ac.2-00 of agricultural land comprised in Sy.No.91/2 of Munagalapadu village, Kurnool District. The said land, along with other lands, were acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of the residents of Munagalapadu village, whose houses were inundated in the floods occurred in 2009. Initially, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was dispensed with. The petitioner and others have filed W.P.Nos.708/2010, 1066/2010 and 1883/2010 challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by quashing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act with the direction to hold enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his objections. However, the said objections were rejected and a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. After issuing notices of award enquiry, respondent No.2 has passed award on 12-8-2010. The petitioner has received the compensation on 27-8-2010 without any protest. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on the ground that he has received the amount of compensation under the award on being forced by influential people. In my opinion, the petitioner has acquiesced in questioning the acquisition proceedings. Having earlier filed a Writ Petition and got the declaration under Section 6 of the Act quashed and participated in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act, he has not challenged the acquisition proceedings further. As a result, the petitioner allowed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act to reach its finality qua his land. Moreover, the petitioner has received the compensation under the award. Except stating that he received the compensation amount under force, the petitioner has not substantiated the said statement in any manner. Therefore, the ipsi dixit of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.33761/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-11-2011 AM