THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28952 of 2011 Dated 29th October, 2011 Between: Ch.Narayana …Petitioner And The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad-04 and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pasam Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to pass appropriate order on the petitioner’s representation, dated 03.08.2011, filed for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2.50 cents in Survey No.1 of Karalapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Pasam Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned land, which was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 24.04.2008. According to the petitioner, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published and thereafter, he gave a representation on 03.08.2011 to respondent No.1 and also to the Minister for Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, with a request to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation is not being disposed of. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.16780 of 2008 questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and that the same was dismissed on 10.11.2010. She further submitted that an award has already been passed and possession was taken on 10.06.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that his client has earlier filed W.P.No.16780 of 2008. He, however, stated that the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel also did not dispute the fact that an award has already been passed, but according to him, possession has not been taken. The petitioner failed to disclose the fact that he has earlier filed W.P.No.16780 of 2008, which in the opinion of this Court is a material fact. The petitioner also did not reveal the fact that an award has already been passed. Even though the petitioner denied the claim of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that possession was taken on 10.06.2011, I have no manner of doubt about the correctness of the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader made on instructions. Under Section 48 of the Act, the Government is vested with the discretion to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings in cases where possession has not been taken. In the instant case, inasmuch as possession has already been taken, no purpose will be served by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings. Moreover as noted above, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as he suppressed material facts. For both the above-mentioned reasons, I am not inclined to extend the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.35809 and 35810 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th October, 2011 VGB