The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.29930 of 2011 Date: 10th November, 2011 Between: Golla Aseervadham ..... Petitioner and 1.The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.V.Sesha Sai Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash award No.11/2011-12 (B) in ROC.B/256/2009, dated 31-08-2011, of respondent No.3- Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. An extent of Ac.0-95 cents in Kolamuru Village, Undi Mandal, was notified for acquisition for providing house sites to the houseless poor persons of the said Village. After making publications, as required under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. The vendor of the petitioner participated in the said enquiry and submitted his objections. In his objections, he has not opposed the acquisition but he only claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per acre. After considering those objections, respondent No.2 passed an order rejecting the same and consequently, declaration, dated 09-06-2010, issued under Section 6 of the Act, was published on 22-06-2010 in the District Gazette. Almost a year later, the petitioner has purchased an extent of Ac.0-29 cents, forming part of the acquired land referred to above, by registered sale deed, dated 01-06-2011. The petitioner participated in the award proceedings and made a request to drop the acquisition proceedings to the extent of the land purchased by him. However, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned award. At the hearing, Sri A.V.Seshasai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated as more than one year had lapsed from the date of the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the date on which the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand on a better footing than his vendor was. As noted above, in his objections, the petitioner’s vendor has not opposed the acquisition. He has merely claimed compensation at a particular rate. The petitioner’s vendor, being aware of the acquisition proceedings, ought not to have sold part of the acquired land to the petitioner. Even though the petitioner feigns ignorance of the acquisition proceedings, along with the property he has purchased the risk of its acquisition as well. As held by the Supreme Court in Meera Sahni vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others[1], a person who purchased the property, which was notified for acquisition, is not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings and he can only claim compensation. The very conduct of the petitioner, who purchased the property under acquisition, itself disentitles him to challenge the acquisition proceedings, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is discretionary in nature. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.37087 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 10th November, 2011 LUR [1] 2008 (9) SCC 177