IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 21776 of 2007 Between: Bayapu Reddy Ramakka D/o.Late Venkat Reddy Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 2 The District Collector, Kadapa District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajupalem Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the 1st Respondent in having made secret acquisition of the lands of the petitioner in an extent of Ac4.92 cents in Sy.No. 74/5 situated at Rajupalem Village and Mandal, Kadapa District without notice to the petitioner and without valid land acquisition Proceedings as illegal, and arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act 2006 and violatvie of principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the illegal, acquisition of the said land and set aside the entire acquisition proceedings including award if any pertaining to the said land of the petitioner, directing the respondents to spare the land of the petitioner and acquire if necessary other suitable lands available in the village, as there are many suitable lands in the village for housing purpose and as there are many people who are willing for the acquisition of their lands and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21776 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, who is physically challenged person, is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.48 comprised in survey No.74-5 of Rajupalem Village and Mandal in Kadapa District. She statedly purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 14.12.1934. Subsequently, she sold a portion of the land and now she alleges that she is in occupation of Acs.4.92. In April, 2007, first respondent asked petitioner to vacate the land stating that the same was acquired and that it is to be plotted and distributed among landless poor. On enquiry, she was informed that in the related acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- was awarded to her. The petitioner is aggrieved by this. She contends that there was no notification and that procedure under the Act was not followed. She also contends that action of first respondent is mala fide in acquiring the land without following due process of law. According to petitioner, the publication of notification in ‘Prajasakthi’ Newspapaer which has no circulation in the area is not sufficient compliance with law. The writ petition is coming up for admission from October, 2007. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not filed counter affidavit. However, he opposed the writ petition contending that petitioner filed similar writ petition earlier, which was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to petitioner to challenge land acquisition award already passed. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. There is force in the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader. Petitioner filed W.P.No.10446 of 2007. The prayer in the said writ petition and the prayer in the present writ petition are same. The said writ petition was dismissed on 06.07.2007 in the following manner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A) placed before this Court a copy of the Award No.26 (S.W.L.A.)/2006-07 Ref.E/1100/2006 dated 27.01.2007 passed by first respondent and the same is made part of the record. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge said award before appropriate Forum. Granting leave and liberty to do so, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. When the award is passed, a challenge to land acquisition proceedings, much less to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act or declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, would not lie. The award passed also ordinarily cannot be challenged and remedy of land owner is to seek enhancement of compensation before appropriate Forum (See Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v Industrial Development Investment Company Private Limited, C.Padma v Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v Shah Hyder Beig). As the petitioner’s writ petition was already dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to challenge the award, petitioner cannot again file writ petition on the same cause of action. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .12.2008 pln