THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11053 of 2011 Dated: 21.04.2011 Between: Gunaganti Venkateswarlu, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND Union of India, New Delhi and 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11053 of 2011 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that Section 3(J) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as amended by Act 16 of 1997 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the additional market value under Section 23 (i) (a) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Varma, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The material available on record shows that the petitioner’s house which is situated abutting the National Highway No.9 was acquired in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the public purpose of 4/6 laning of NH.9 from Km 125/750 to Km 190/600 of Hyderabad to Vijayawada section in Nalgonda District. The said proceedings have admittedly become final. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.2700 of 2011 contending that his house was not properly valued and the compensation was not paid according to the market value. While observing that it was open to the petitioner to seek arbitration before the concerned authority, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 09.03.2011 leaving it open to the petitioner to put forward his claim before the District Collector, who is the competent authority to determine the compensation. Suppressing the said fact, the present writ petition is filed in which the petitioner seeks an interim direction to the respondent not to evict the petitioner from the house in question till the disposal of the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings have already attained finality, it appears to me that there are absolutely no bona fides in filing the present writ petition challenging the validity of the provisions of the Act. It is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar submitted that the vacant possession of the premises in question would be handed over by the petitioner if reasonable time is granted. It is always open to the petitioner to make such a request before the respondents and interference by this Court even on the said ground is not warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission leaving it open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent requesting further time for handing over the vacant possession of the premises in question. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.04.2011 KLP