THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.28117/10 & 16584/11 Dated 28th October, 2011 Between: K.Nooruddin and others …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Land Acquisition (Industries) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Narender Jalli Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.Roy Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter of these writ petitions is common, they are being heard and disposed of together. The petitioners are the owners of land admeasuring Acs.9.04 cents in Survey Nos.294-2A/A, 295/A and 295/3 of Podaralla Village, Bukkasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 02.11.2007, proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of establishment of a bottling unit. The said notification was followed by a declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. Both these proceedings were questioned in W.P.No.8014 of 2008 by the petitioners. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 06.10.2009. The petitioners have filed W.A.No.1224 of 2009, which was allowed by a Division Bench, of which I am a party, by judgment, dated 09.11.2009. The Division Bench, while setting aside the order, dated 27.12.2007, by which the petitioners’ objections were rejected and declaring the subsequent proceedings as invalid, gave liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to the extent of the lands belonging to the petitioners. Accordingly, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held afresh, the petitioners’ objections were considered and a fresh order was passed rejecting their objections by respondent No.3, vide proceedings in Rc.No.G1/5350/2007, dated 09.03.2010. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.8319 of 2010. This Court, after a detailed consideration of the case, upheld the order of respondent No.3 rejecting the petitioners’ objections and dismissed the writ petition by order, dated 15.04.2010. Undeterred by the said order, the petitioners once again ventured to question the order, dated 09.03.2010, passed by respondent No.3, by filing another writ petition, namely, W.P.No.28117 of 2010. The said writ petition came up for admission on 12.11.2010 and the same was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since then, it has not seen the light of the day. Following the order of respondent No.3 rejecting the petitioners’ objections, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and the same was published in the District Gazette on 31.03.2010, daily newspapers on 03.04.2010 & 05.04.2010 and in the locality on 06.04.2010. After holding the award enquiry, Award No.6 of 2010 was made on 08.11.2010. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P.No.16584 of 2011 questioning the award proceedings. This Court by order, dated 24.06.2011, granted status quo for a period of one week and the said order was extended until further orders by order, dated 28.06.2011. On 17.10.2011, this Court directed W.P.No.28117 of 2010 to be posted along with W.P.No.16584 of 2011. The respondents filed separate counter affidavits, wherein they have alleged that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and indulged in vexatious litigations of filing successive writ petitions. It is alleged that even though W.P.No.8319 of 2010 filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 15.04.2010, the petitioners have ventured to file W.P.No.28117 of 2010 for the same relief as was claimed in the previous writ petition, without disclosing the fact that a writ petition was earlier filed and was dismissed on merits. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the fact that his clients have earlier filed W.P.No.8319 of 2010 questioning the order, dated 09.03.2010, rejecting their objections and that the said writ petition was dismissed on merits, which order has become final. The learned counsel, however, invited this Court’s attention to paragraph-6 of the affidavit filed in W.P.No.16584 of 2011, wherein it is averred that the copy of order, dated 09.03.2010, was not communicated to the petitioners, though it was marked to their advocate in the lower Court and that therefore they have filed W.P.No.8319 of 2010, which was dismissed by order, dated 15.04.2010, and that without knowledge of dismissal of the said writ petition, they filed W.P.No.28117 of 2010. It is further averred that the petitioners have filed an application for withdrawal of the earlier writ petition. When this Court has asked the learned counsel as to whether an application for withdrawal of W.P.No.28117 of 2010 was filed, he did not answer the query. On the admitted facts of the case, the petitioners have indulged in suppression of material fact, namely, that they have earlier filed W.P.No.8319 of 2010 for the same relief, which is claimed in W.P.No.28117 of 2010. They were unsuccessful in W.P.No.8319 of 2010, which was dismissed on 15.04.2010, and within a few days after dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioners ventured to file W.P.No.28117 of 2010 for the same relief, in addition to seeking a consequential relief of setting aside notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. It is only in W.P.No.16584 of 2011 that the petitioners, who have realised that their diabolic conduct is exposed that they have sought to come out with a lame excuse that they were not aware of the result of the earlier writ petition. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of filing of W.P.No.8319 of 2010. The only fresh cause of action that had arisen after filing of W.P.No.8319 of 2010 was issuance of notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. Having already questioned the order, dated 09.03.2010, rejecting their objections in W.P.No.8319 of 2010, it is not permissible for the petitioners to embark upon filing another writ petition for the same relief. While it is not possible to believe that they were not aware of the result of W.P.No.8319 of 2010, when they filed W.P.No.28117 of 2010, even assuming that they were not aware of such dismissal, the petitioners were not expected to file a fresh writ petition for the same relief by adding a consequential relief. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners have indulged in abuse of process of Court by filing W.P.No.28117 of 2010, suppressing the fact of their filing earlier writ petition. W.P.No.16584 of 2011 is filed questioning the award. Once the order rejecting the objections of the petitioners has become final with its affirmation of this Court in W.P.No.8319 of 2010, all other proceedings, such as, publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of award, are consequential. The petitioners failed to raise any plea regarding the legality in publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act or passing of the award. As such, no legally sustainable grounds are raised by the petitioners for interference with the award impugned in W.P.No.16584 of 2011. It is trite that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the same cannot be exercised in favour of a person who has come to this Court with unclean hands. Irrespective of merits of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to the indulgence of this Court as they have blatantly suppressed the material facts as noted above. Even on merits, this Court is convinced that there is no illegality committed by the respondents in acquiring the petitioners’ lands. For the misdemeanour of the petitioners, they are saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each case payable to the A.P.High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today. The Secretary, A.P.High Court Legal Services Authority, shall take appropriate steps for recovery of the costs in the event the petitioners fail to pay the same. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, interim orders, if any granted, shall stand vacated and the interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th October, 2011 VGB