THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15556 of 2011 Date:03.08.2011 Between: I.Kommaraju Poornachander Rao And another. ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector, Krishna District, Vijayawada and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M.L.Ali Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri K.Aruna, Standing Counsel for VGTUDA The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not according approval of layout proposed by the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to receive a copy of proceedings in Rc.No.1734/2009, dated 31.05.2011, addressed by respondent No.2. The petitioners proposed a layout over different portions of land in Sy.Nos.268/1(part), 268/2(part), etc., of Marlapalem, H/o Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Krishna District. However, respondent No.1 initiated land acquisition proceedings for acquiring an extent of Ac.24-01 cents of land situated in Marlapalem, H/o Gannavaram Village, for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The land for which layout was proposed by the petitioners is covered by the said notification. The fact, however, remains that the acquisition proceedings could not be completed and consequently, they have lapsed. Thereafter, the petitioners appear to have submitted fresh proposals for sanction of layout. On the ground that the information sought for by respondent No.3 is not furnished by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.11943 of 2011 for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to address a letter to respondent No.3 in this regard. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order, dated 26.04.2011, with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to furnish necessary information sought for by respondent No.3 with regard to the acquisition proceedings within a period of two months. The petitioners pleaded that in purported compliance of the said order, respondent No.2 has addressed a letter to respondent No.1 seeking permission for giving relevant information on the acquisition proceedings to respondent No.3. The present writ petition is filed for a direction to respondent No.3 to treat the letter, dated 31.05.2011, addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 as the relevant information and finalise the layout proposed. In my opinion, the petitioners having already invited an order from this Court in Writ Petition No.11943 of 2011, cannot be permitted to file successive writ petitions. As noted above, this Court has already directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to furnish necessary information sought for by respondent No.3. If that order is not complied with, the petitioners’ remedy lies in seeking enforcement of the said order by initiating appropriate proceedings. On the ground that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not passed on the required information to respondent No.3, the petitioners cannot be permitted to file the present writ petition. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition as wholly misconceived, the petitioners are permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings for effectuation of order, dated 26.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.11943 of 2011. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.18647 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd August, 2011 DR