HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.10000 of 2010 Date : 29-11-2011 Between: Bodagala Venkatramaiah .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Development (PW) Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Y. Venkatasatyam Counsel for respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in paying ex- gratia to the petitioner instead of passing an award pertaining to the structure ‘Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple’, situated in Reach No.15, Sy.No.124B, H.No.375, Door No.3/123 of Madhavaram village, Vontimetta Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary, against the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pass an award in respect of the structures and pay compensation instead of ex-gratia. I have heard Sri Y. Venkatasatyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. A structure in the nature of a temple got submerged under Somasila project. While passing the award on 14-9-1986, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has not awarded compensation in respect of the said structures on the ground that the estimates were not received and that a supplemental award will be passed after receipt of the estimates. It appears that there was a dispute relating to the said temple between the petitioner on the one side and the Endowments Department on the other. Eventually, the dispute ended in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached respondent No.3, he has issued proceedings dated 8- 9-2008 whereby he has awarded Rs.6,50,000/- as ex- gratia. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said proceeding and ﬁled this Writ Petition with the plea that as he has succeeded in the dispute with the Endowments Department in establishing that the structure is a private temple belonging to him and therefore he is entitled to payment of compensation under the Act. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has ﬁled a Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.11991/2009 for identical relief and that this Court by order dated 20-10-2009 dismissed the same with liberty to the petitioner to agitate his rights, if any, by availing appropriate remedy. A copy of the said order is enclosed to the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the order in the above mentioned Writ Petition shows that the petitioner has claimed the same relief as claimed in the present Writ Petition ipsissima verba. It is useful to reproduce the relief claimed in the said Writ Petition : “….for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in paying ex-gratia passed by respondent No.3 in Ref.A/538/91, dated 8-9- 2008 instead of passing an award pertaining to the structure “Kodandarama Swamy Temple” situate in Reach No.15 in S.No.124B, House No.375, Door No.3/123 of Madhavaram village, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pass an award to pay compensation instead of ex-gratia and pass such other suitable orders.” A comparison of the prayer in the said Writ Petition with that in the present Writ Petition would leave no doubt that the relief claimed in both these Writ Petitions is identical to the core. The earlier Writ Petition was eventually dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to agitate his rights by availing appropriate remedy. The petitioner has not disclosed the fact of his ﬁling the earlier Writ Petition for the same relief and its dismissal. The petitioner is thus guilty of deliberate suppression of a material fact. Having already failed to get the relief in the previous Writ Petition, it is not permissible to the petitioner to ﬁle another Writ Petition for the same relief. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed only on this ground as the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, and the same is accordingly dismissed. For the devious conduct of the petitioner, he is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within one month from today. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, shall take appropriate steps for recovery of the costs, if they are not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time. As a sequel, WPMP No.12855/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-11-2011 AM