THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21274 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questions order bearing Rc.No.B6/3828/2002, dated 26.04.2003, passed by the second respondent - Joint Collector, Adilabad District, and seeks to issue consequential direction to the respondents to pay him compensation in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.18 guntas covered by Survey No.155 of Bukthapur Village, Adilabad Town and District, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At the outset, it is represented that though the petitioner is claiming compensation for Ac.1.18 guntas of land, it was mistakenly mentioned as Ac.1.18 guntas instead of Ac.1.00. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the owner and possessor of Ac.1.18 guntas of land covered by Survey No.155 of Bukthapur Village, which is within the municipal limits of Adilabad Town and District. It is his grievance that the third and fourth respondents - State Bank of Hyderabad, Adilabad Branch, and the Municipal Council, Adilabad, respectively, came into illegal possession of his land to an extent of 20 guntas each, as such, he has moved the second respondent by filing an application for restoration of possession or in the alternative, for payment of compensation with regard to it. The second respondent by referring to various earlier orders passed by the civil Court and the Special Court, rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order. It is to be noticed that with regard to very same one acre of land, against the third and fourth respondents, the petitioner has filed a case before the Special Tribunal (District Court, Adilabad). Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and was numbered as L.G.C.No.7 of 1992, which in turn, was dismissed by the Special Court vide its judgment, dated 28.09.1992, by recording a finding that the title of the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest is extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14088 of 1996, which in turn, was also ended in dismissal through order, dated 05.06.2002, passed by this Court, as such, the said judgment has become final. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as he was dispossessed from the subject land as otherwise than due process of law, he is entitled to compensation. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of JILUBHAI NANBHAI KHACHAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT[1]. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the third and fourth respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the fourth respondent has allotted plot No.8 to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas covered by Survey No.155 out of Ac.1.18 guntas situated at Station Road, Adilabad, for consideration of Rs.5,000/- on 29.04.1959 in favour of the answering respondent. Likewise, Adilabad Municipality had Ac.0.20 guntas out of land of an extent of Ac.1.18 guntas. The answering respondent referred to the proceedings initiated before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. It is also stated that in view of dismissal of the claim of the petitioner by the Special Court, as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.14088 of 1996, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In similar lines, the fourth respondent filed counter-affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The order, which is impugned in the writ petition, came to be passed by the second respondent on the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession of his land or in the alternative, to pay him compensation for wrongful possession of the land by respondents 3 and 4. Very same claim made by the petitioner was already rejected by the Special Court and was confirmed by this Court, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. When the judgment of the Special Court, as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.14088 of 1996, has become final, under the guise of making representation to the second respondent, it is not permissible for the petitioner to agitate very same claim again. From the series of proceedings filed, it is clear that the relief sought for in this writ petition itself is nothing short of gross abuse of process of law. Although the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in JILUBHAI NANBHAI KHACHAR’s case (1 supra), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, where the claim of the petitioner was already rejected by the Special Court and the same was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.14088 of 1996, no direction can be given to the respondents for award of compensation to the petitioner as prayed for by him. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is totally devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st OCTOBER, 2010. kvni [1] AIR 1995 SC 142