HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19668 of 2008 Date: 22.10.2010 Between : Panguluri Nageswara Rao & others. …….Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19668 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not taking steps for payment of compensation to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, for the lands acquired by the respondents for the purpose of extension/widening of drainage canal (saki kalva) in Adusumalli village of Parchuru Mandal in Prakasam District, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, for the lands acquired from them for the aforesaid public purpose. Before going into merits of the claim of petitioners, it is to be noticed that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition with the same prayer in W.P.No.23830 of 2000. The prayer in the aforesaid writ petition reads as under : “to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the compensation to the Petitioners for the lands taken by them for the purpose execution of drainage works in Saki Kalva (Saki Canal) near Adusumilli Village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam Dist. as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Article 300- A of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioners in accordance with the benefits accrued to them under the Land Acquisition Act forthwith.” In the aforesaid writ petition, counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, contending that no part of petitioners’ lands have been occupied by the respondents and that the earth was removed in the existing drain for free flow of water, as such, the petitioners are not affected parties, and hence, they are not entitled for compensation. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has also observed that although the petitioners pleaded that the drainage was dug from their lands by widening the existing line, they could not file any combined sketch demarcating the line between their lands and the drain. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court observed that as no portion of petitioners’ land was acquired, no relief could be granted to them, and accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed. However, observations were made, giving liberty to the petitioners to pursue the matter for compensation either in a Civil Court or in appropriate forum, if they have sufficient material to show that their lands were also occupied by the respondents for the purpose of widening the drain. The present writ petition is also filed with identical prayer. It is the case of the petitioners that when they approached the Tahsildar concerned, he has issued a certificate, certifying that the Ryots have lost their landed properties in the extension of Saki drain to the extents as shown in the Certificate, dated 24.07.2008, issued in Rc.D.T.135/2008. On the ground that the petitioners are entitled for compensation in view of the said certificate, the present writ petition is filed. When a similar relief is already rejected by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, without any leave being granted by this Court, the petitioners cannot maintain a 2nd writ petition for the very same relief. When the judgment in the earlier writ petition has become final, it is not open for the petitioners to seek for the very same relief with identical prayer. If there is any material, which was found by the petitioners subsequent to passing of earlier order, it may be a case to seek review of the said order passed by this Court, but basing on the certificate stated to have been issued by the Tahsildar concerned, a 2nd writ petition cannot be maintained. On the aforesaid ground alone, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to take any other steps open under law, to claim compensation for the acquired land. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd October 2010 ajr