IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17571 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Waheeduddin … Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep., by the National Highway Authority, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mohd. Ghulam Rasool Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Roads and Buildings Counsel for respondents 3to5: GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri S..M. Subhani SC for AP Wakf Board This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17571 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Sy.No.206 of Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, without paying compensation under Section 3A to I of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the 1956 Act’) read with the control of National Highways (Land and Traﬃc) Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the 2003 Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the Muthwalli of Masjid Qutub Shahi, Sama Khana and Graveyard situated in Sy.No.206 of Shamshabad Village. He also claimed that the said property is a notiﬁed Wakf situated abutting National Highway No.7 admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas. In his aﬃdavit, he averred that a part of the said property admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas was sought to be utilized and the structures existing thereon were proposed to be demolished for the purpose of widening of the existing National Highway No.7. He also averred that at the instance of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, respondent No.6 herein, a sum of Rs.84,213/- was deposited by the Chief Executive Oﬃcer of the Wakf Board towards the value of the structures existing on the land, which were required to be demolished for widening purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the respondents have initiated any proceedings under the 1956 Act nor paid any compensation for Ac.0.11 guntas of land. On 13.08.2008, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed WP.No.4823 of 2004 to be put up with this ﬁle for reference in view of mentioning of the said case in paragraph 5 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner. Accordingly, the said case was placed before the Court on 14.08.2008. A perusal of the record in the said case shows that the petitioner herein ﬁled the said writ petition in respect of the same property questioning the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the Mosque and other structures situated on the abovementioned property for the purpose of widening of the existing national highway. Interim direction of status quo was granted by this Court on 18.03.2004 in WPMP.No.6316 of 2004. The National Highways Authority ﬁled WVMP.No.2108 of 2008, which was heard and disposed of by this Court by order dated 05.08.2008. In the said order, it was observed as under: “While the writ petitioner, who is the mutawalli of the mosque, claims that the property, which is being utilized for widening of the National Highway by the respondents, is a Wakf property, the Roads and Buildings Department maintained that the land belongs to the Government and the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer valued the structure and paid amount to respondent no.6. the fact that respondent No.6 received the amount is admitted in the counter ﬁled by respondent No.6. Even assuming that the property belongs to mosque, the case of the writ petitioner is that without paying compensation under the provisions of the relevant Act, the property cannot be taken over by the respondents. The purpose for which the property is sought to be utilized is an important public purpose, namely, widening of the National Highway. In the main writ petition, the question whether the property belongs to the Wakf or to the Government is required to be adjudicated. Already, in view of the order of status quo granted by this Court, the work is stalled for a period of about four years. Stoppage of such an important public work not only causes serious public inconvenience by also results in escalation of project cost. Therefore, in my considered view, it is not in public interest to continue the order of status quo until adjudication of the dispute between the writ petitioner on the one side and respondents 1 to 5 on the other. The alleged value of the purported structure is already paid to respondent No.6. If at all the value of the land will have to be paid, in the event it is held that the land belongs to the Wakf. Therefore, the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are clearly in favour of respondent No.1 to vacate the interim order subject to the condition that if the claim of the writ petitioner that the property belongs to the Wakf is upheld in the writ petition, respondent No.1 shall pay the market value of the entire property in accordance with the provisions of either 1894 Act or the 1956 Act as the case may be.” Within less than a week of vacating the interim order by this Court in the earlier writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner, he ﬁled the present writ petition for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in seeking to dispossess him from the land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Sy.No.206 of Shamshabad village. In my considered view, the petitioner indulged in abuse of process of law by litigating through successive writ petitions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions, in my opinion, such a distinction is wholly artiﬁcial and without any substance. Though in form, the relief claimed in the previous writ petition was conﬁned to challenging the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the structures, the petitioner clearly averred in paras 2 and 6 that the Masjid, Sama Khana, Graveyard and residential house are old Wakf institutions and that the property in question being a registered Wakf institution, the respondents cannot either dismantle the House, Sama Khana or change the nature of the Graveyard or the Masjid for the purpose of road widening. The question whether the entire property including Ac.0.11 guntas of land over which the structures existed belongs to the said Wakf and the respondents are liable to pay compensation or not is undoubtedly involved in WP.No.4823 of 2004. This Court, while passing order dated 05.08.2008 in WVMP.No.2108 of 2008 in the said writ petition, clearly observed in the paragraph reproduced hereinabove that the said question is required to be adjudicated in the writ petition and in the event it is held that the property is a notiﬁed Wakf, respondent No.1 shall pay the market value of the entire property in accordance with the provisions of either 1894 Act or the 1956 Act as the case may be. Thus, if there were any doubts about the scope of the previous litigation, the same were clariﬁed beyond any doubt in the said order. Having suﬀered the order on 05.08.2008, whereby the order of status quo granted in favour of the petitioner was vacated, it is not permissible for the petitioner to ﬁle another writ petition, albeit, with a prayer, which sounds diﬀerent in its form, but is virtually identical in its content. As WP.No.4823 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioner is already pending adjudication in this Court, the present writ petition for substantially the same relief cannot be maintained by him. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.22847 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2008 ES