THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23180 of 2001 13.2.2008 Between: Gajjarapu Ramakrishna Satyanarayana Choudary, S/o.Veerraju … Petitioner and District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23180 of 2001 ORDER: The land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in R.S.No.50 situated at Rameshwaram village of Pedapudi Mandal in East Godavari District, was sought to be acquired for providing house sites to persons belonged to weaker sections. Petitioner, who allegedly purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 05.8.1998, filed instant writ petition complaining illegalities in such acquisition. According to him, respondents never issued any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), declaration under Section 6 of the Act, nor petitioner was put on notice under Sections 9(1), 9(3) or 10 of the Act. Therefore, he filed present writ petition seeking invalidation of acquisition proceedings. A counter affidavit is filed, inter alia, stating that Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedapudi Mandal, inspected land admeasuring about Acs.2.67 in survey No.50 of Rameswaram, which is a barber service inam. After completing necessary formalities, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in extraordinary Gazette dated 12.2.1993 and in daily Newspapers on 08.3.1993. Enquiry was conducted on 27.5.1993 and thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in District Gazette dated 08.7.1993, besides publishing the same in two local Newspapers. At that stage, Smt.Vemuri Kameswaramma filed writ petition being W.P.No.13074 of 1993. This Court stayed acquisition proceedings by order dated 04.9.1993 in WPMP No.16542 of 1993. Subsequently writ petition was dismissed on 04.9.2001 observing that the Award enquiry be completed within a period of three months. When notices were issued to Smt.Kameswaramma under Sections 9(1), 10 and 9(3) of the Act during Award enquiry, present writ petition came to be filed and interim orders were obtained on 09.11.2001. It is also alleged that when petitioner admittedly purchased the land in August 1998, he cannot have any locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings, which have already been upheld by the High Court. Admittedly the land originally belonged to Smt.Kameswaramma. She sold the land to M/s.K.S.N.Raju and Lakshmi under registered sale deeds dated 13.2.1996, from whom petitioner purchased under registered sale deed dated 05.8.1998. Even before petitioner could purchase property, notifications and declarations were issued in 1993. The land acquisition proceedings remained stayed till 04.9.2001 by reason of orders passed by this Court and thereafter when Award enquiry was taken up, present writ petition was filed on 07.11.2001. In effect, insofar as orders of land acquisition proceedings are concerned, at best petitioner may have locus standi to participate in Award enquiry and claim compensation, as derivative titleholder. When once land acquisition proceedings have been upheld by this Court by order dated 04.9.2001 in W.P.No.13074 of 1993, the same cannot be reagitated in this Court. Learned Counsel for petitioner however submits that subsequently all those beneficiaries, who were identified for allotment of land in R.S.No.50, were allotted land elsewhere, and therefore, the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in R.S.No.50 purchased by petitioner, may not be necessary for the purpose. This is a matter to be decided either by Land Acquisition Officer or on a proper representation by District Collector/Government. This Court cannot ordinarily issue direction to exclude the land from acquisition proceedings or for withdrawal of proceedings under Section 48 of the Act. Petitioner, if so advised, may approach authorities for the said purpose. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ February 13, 2008 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS