HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33913 of 2011 Date: 23.12.2011 Between: Yugal Kishore Sharma ..... Petitioner And: The Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Achuta Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing award, dated 05.10.2010, as illegal and unconstitutional. The land to an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in Survey No.450/3 of Yedpalli Village, Nizamabad District, was notified for acquisition under notification, dated 19.12.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3190 of 2008 assailing the said proceedings. This Court has allowed the said Writ Petition by holding that the notification to the extent of dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was bad. The petitioner was accordingly permitted to file his objections to the proposed acquisition. In response to Form-3 notice, the petitioner is stated to have filed his objections. Evidently, after rejecting those objections, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the District gazette. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5416 of 2009 once again questioning the acquisition proceedings. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has received notices under Sections 9(1) and 10, and 9(3) and 10 of the Act and the petitioner filed his objections on 23.02.2010. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that as the respondents have come out with the plea that they are taking steps to pass an award, he has withdrawn the Writ Petition which was dismissed as such on 06.04.2010. When the respondents threatened to dispossess the petitioner, he has filed Writ Petition No.15436 of 2010. The respondents have stated in the counter-affidavit filed in the said Writ Petition that the award was passed on 05.10.2010. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court. It is useful to reproduce the relevant part of the order passed in the said Writ Petition, which reads as under: - “As could be seen, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.5416 of 2009, in which the respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the very same issues relating to the validity of the acquisition. It is also relevant to note that an award was already passed on 05.10.2010 and the possession was also taken by the respondents. Hence, the acquisition cannot be challenged on any ground whatsoever at this stage.” ( Emphasis added) Undeterred by the dismissal of Writ Petition No.15436 of 2010, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition wherein he has attempted to impeach award, dated 05.10.2010, on the ground that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated as he was not given an opportunity of representing his case in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not published properly except in the District gazette. The petitioner also pleaded that the said declaration is not within the time stipulated under Clause (ii) of second proviso to Section 6 of the Act. In my opinion, this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. From the facts noted above, by the time the petitioner herein has filed Writ Petition No.5416 of 2009, all the objections which he had relating to denial of opportunity to him in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and non- publication or improper publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act were available to him for being agitated. Without pursuing the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has on his own withdrawn the same when the respondents have come out with the stand that they are going to pass award. The petitioner made another attempt for assailing the validity of the acquisition by filing Writ Petition No.15436 of 2010, wherein this Court has rendered a categorical finding that with the dismissal of Writ Petition No.5416 of 2009, the petitioner was not entitled to re-agitate the very same issues relating to the validity of the acquisition. This Court has also taken note of the fact that award was passed on 05.10.2010 and possession was taken by the respondents. The petitioner allowed the said order to become final. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to initiate a fresh round of litigation by seeking to assail the validity of the award. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.42182 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd December 2011 DR