IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:15722 of 2000 Between: C.R.Sunder Iyer and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification, dated 22.12.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequential proceedings vide Award No.2 of 1990, dated 09.07.1990 passed by respondent No.2 in respect of Acs.22.90 cents of dry land in Survey No.32 of Vadlapudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. This case has vintage history. The sole petitioner, in whose place petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as his legal representatives, was the owner of the land of an extent of Acs.22.90 cents in Survey No.32 of Vadlapudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (For convenience sake, the petitioners are hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). The said land was notiﬁed for acquisition for Visakhapatnam Steel Project by notiﬁcation, dated 22.12.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Much prior to the acquisition of this land, the Parliament enacted Visakhapatnam Steel Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’), by which, the compensation payable to the owners of the properties acquired for the Visakhapatnam Steel Project purpose was pegged down to 01.04.1966. Vires of the 1972 Act was challenged in a batch of writ petitions, namely, WP.No.308 of 1981 and batch. A Division Bench of this Court by it’s judgment, dated 29.01.1982 disposed of the said batch, wherein it is shown that if the ingredients of the second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution of India are satisﬁed, namely, the acquired land is held by a person, who was in personal cultivation, and the same is within the ceiling limits, the owner of such land is entitled to payment of market value without reference to the 1972 Act. The said judgment was questioned before the Supreme Court. While the cases were pending before the Supreme Court, the impugned notiﬁcation was issued and the award was passed on 09.07.1990. It is not in dispute that in the case of the land of the petitioner, compensation was ﬁxed in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Act. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was serving sentence having been convicted in a criminal case at the time when the award was passed. But, however, his power of attorney represented the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there was a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation, the same was referred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The dispute relating to enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act was also the subject matter of reference, which was registered as O.P.No.50 of 1999, in which, the petitioner ﬁgured as respondent No.2, while the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Unit II, Visakhapatnam was shown as the referring oﬃcer. Before the matter was referred to the Civil Court, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No.6178 of 1995 for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to re-convey and deliver possession of the land of an extent of Acs.22.90 cents on the ground that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer by ﬁxing compensation on the basis of the 1972 Act was a nullity. While the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition for the relief as stated above. WP.No.6178 of 1995 was dismissed on 18.12.2003 on the ground that the issue raised in the said writ petition was covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.953 of 1999, dated 15.07.1999. In his order, the learned Judge, however, observed that dismissal of the said writ petition does not bar the State from considering re- conveyance of the land to the petitioner in accordance with law. In the meantime, the petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.49 of 2000 in O.P.No.50 of 1999, wherein he requested the reference Court to close the reference proceedings on the ground that the award itself was null and void. Accordingly, the reference Court expressed it’s helplessness as the petitioner did not intend to participate in the said proceedings, and closed the O.P. by it’s order, dated 19.06.2000. At the hearing, Sri V.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer in his award, dated 09.07.1990 failed to follow the ratio laid down by the Division Bench by not examining whether the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution, the award is a nullity. He, therefore, contended that the entire land acquisition proceedings shall be declared as nonest. Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, however, stated that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, because the petitioner did not succeed to get the award invalidated in his earlier writ petition, namely, WP.No.6178 of 1995. He submitted that this writ petition is therefore barred by principle of resjudicata. He also submitted that the petitioner cannot claim higher compensation as he failed to claim the said relief in the earlier writ petition, and hence, such a claim is barred by the principle contained in Order II Rule 2 of CPC. He contended that the petitioner had the opportunity of seeking enhancement of the compensation in O.P.No.50 of 1999 by showing that he satisﬁed the ingredients of the second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution and having himself withdrawn the said O.P., he cannot pursue this writ petition. I have seriously considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I ﬁnd force in the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The award was passed as far back as 09.07.1990. The petitioner did not raise any dispute with respect to the said award till 1995, when he ﬁled Writ Petition No.6178 of 1995 for the relief of re-conveyance of the land on the ground that the land acquisition proceedings are void abinitio. For the reasons best known to him, he did not seek the relief of ﬁxation of proper compensation at least as an alternative relief. The said writ petition was dismissed and Writ Appeal No.1397 of 2004 ﬁled by him was also dismissed on 22.09.2004. Therefore, having failed to get the relief claimed in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner cannot pursue the present writ petition for a similar relief and this writ petition is barred by the principle of resjudicata. As regards the claim for enhanced compensation, he ought to have claimed such a relief in the previous writ petitions. As he failed to do so, the relief claimed in the present writ petition is barred on the principle of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Another reason for my disinclination to grant relief to the petitioner in this writ petition is that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the petitioner had the opportunity of convincing the reference Court in O.P.No.50 of 1999 that he satisﬁed all the ingredients of the second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution, but he withdrew the said O.P. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner at this juncture that the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer ought to have taken into consideration the law laid down by the Division Bench in passing the award. The petitioner ought to have raised the said contention in the reference Court, which was competent to see whether the dicta laid down by the Division Bench was followed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer in his award or not. Having not availed such an opportunity and by withdrawing the O.P. itself, in my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.19964 of 2000 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni