HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23444 of 2010 Date : 11-10-2011 Between: Sajid Mujtaba Sharief and others .. Petitioners and The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Warangal and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not acquiring the petitioners’ land admeasuring Ac.0-0-04½ guntas in Sy.No.737 of Hanamkonda Village and Mandal, Warangal District, and in not paying compensation in respect of the said land to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the above mentioned land. They have earlier filed W.P.No.10514/2001 questioning the action of respondent No.1 in not paying compensation for the said land by alleging that respondent No.1 is in occupation of the said land. This Court, after an elaborate hearing of the case, disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 11-9-2008 wherein it is inter alia held as under : “….While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to decide the disputed question of fact, namely, whether the land of the petitioners to the extent of Ac.0-04½ guntas over and above the land that was acquired by respondent No.1 in 1966 has been in possession of respondent No.1 or not. Such a question can be decided only by a Civil Court in a properly constituted civil suit. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. In the event the Civil Court declares that the land of an extent of Ac.0-04½ guntas belonging to the petitioners is in possession of respondent No.1-Corporation, the respondents shall initiate appropriate proceedings under the Act and pay compensation to them. It is made clear that the petitioners can also seek appropriate damages for use and occupation of their land without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Act, in the civil suit that may be filed by them.” Instead of filing a civil suit, the petitioners appear to have approached the Survey Department and filed the present Writ Petition stating that the survey report shows that respondent No.1 is in occupation of the extent of Ac.0-04½ guntas. The petitioners therefore sought for payment of compensation. In my opinion, the approach of the petitioners is wholly misconceived. This Court, in unequivocal terms, held that the petitioners can only approach the competent Civil Court for compensation. The said order, passed parties inter se, binds the petitioners. Therefore, they cannot once again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of a purported new cause of action, namely, the findings contained in the report of the Survey Department. As directed by this Court, the petitioners can only avail their remedy before the Civil Court, in a properly constituted suit, in which the survey report can also be relied upon to substantiate their claim. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit for redressal of their grievance. As a sequel, WPMP No.30001/2010 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 11-10-2011 AM