(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.1220/2005/A dated 06.02.2006, resuming an extent of Ac 1.00 cents Ac 1.50 cents and Ac 2.50 cents in Sy.No.154/3 of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam (rural) Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and delivery receipt Rc.No.1/2005/Spl.RI dated 15.02.2006 as illegal, fraudulent, arbitrary, void, high handed, violative of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order of the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.1220/2005/A dated 06.02.2006 along with all consequential proceedings issued in connection with the land to an extent of Ac 5.00 cents in SV.No.154/3 of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam (rural) Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to pass such other order or orders.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the resumption proceedings issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar vide RC No.1220/2005/A, dated 06.02.2006, resuming an extent of Ac.1.00 cents, Ac.1.50 cents and Ac.2.50 cents in survey No.154/3 of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam (rural Mandal), Visakhapatnam District, and in handing over the same to the 6th respondent-Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) under delivery receipt vide RC No.1/2005/Spl.RI dated 15.02.2006, as it is illegal, arbitrary, void, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short the Act).

2. It is narrated in the affidavit that the subject property was assigned to Miyala Sujanamma w/o. late Simhachalam, in the year 1981 vide D.R. No.187/71. The said Smt. Sujanamma arrayed as petitioner No.1 in the Writ Petition and Smt. Nethala Prameela @ Mercy Rukmini Prameela w/o. Nethala Premanandam, daughter of the petitioner No.1 herein, arrayed as petitioner No.2 in the Writ Petition. Since, the date of assignment, the subject property was brought into cultivation and also constructed a house and the name of 1st petitioner, was recorded in the revenue records vide Khata No.359 and electricity connection was given by Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited vide service No.116515K022000492 and name of the 1st petitioner was included in Form-III issued under the Act. That indicates that the assignment was issued in favour of the 1st petitioner herein. And it is further narrated that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have trespassed into the subject property and cause havoc by demolishing house, poultry sheds and also cutting down the valuable trees, fruit bearing trees and other plantations. Aggrieved by the illegal interference of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner No.1 filed W.P. No.20563 of 2006 and the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of Writ  Petition vide order dated 28.09.2006, directing the respondents therein not to forcibly evict the petitioners without following due process of law.

3. Subsequent to the disposal of the Writ Petition, the respondent No.5 issued proceedings vide Rc.No.1220/2005/A dated 06.02.2006 resuming an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of the Ac.5.00 cents assigned to the petitioner No.1 herein, on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has violated assignment conditions. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner therein to challenge earlier orders, if any, on the ground that the land has already being resumed to the Government vide delivery receipt dated 15.02.2006. The said order copy of this Court has been filed as Exhibit P-8 along with the material papers in the Writ Petition.

                  The relevant portion of order in W.P. No.13664 of 2015 is extracted hereunder:

                  “Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has produced instructions of the Tahsildar-3rd respondent in Rc.No.993/2007/A, dated 14.11.2022 and as well as the material papers stating that as per the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) vide Rc.No.1220/05/A/Dt.06.02.2006, the land has been resumed to the Government vide delivery receipt dt.15.02.2006 showing that the land was handed over to V.U.D.A., Visakhapatnam.

                  In view of the instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ Petition.

                  Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed, however granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the earlier orders, if any.”

4. Now, assailing the same proceedings i.e. Rc.No.1220/05/A/ Dt.06.02.2006 and the delivery receipt dated 15.02.2006, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the very resumption is contrary to the provisions of the Act and on the same ground that it has been assailed in the earlier Writ petition i.e. W.P. No.13664 of 2015.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on two judgments. One is in the case of T. Kailash v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2023 SCC OnLine AP 374), and another is in the case of Kanchi Venkatesham v. The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy and others(2010 SCC OnLine AP 1170).

6. The respondent No.6 has filed counter affidavit. In the Counter, it is asserted that resumed land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Kommadi village in survey No.154/3 and was handed over by the Revenue Department on 15.02.2006 in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.1606, M.A.M.A.&UD (H2) Department, dated 01.12.2005, for development purpose. When the land was taken possession by the VMRDA, it was fully vacant without any cultivation/ encumbrances on ground. After taking possession of the said land, the VMRDA has also developed a Master Plan Road through a part of the said land and the remaining vacant extent is under possession and custody of the VMRDA. The said aspect was also admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioners at paragraph 6 of the affidavit and their contention is that the very acquisition/taking possession is contrary to law.

7. The 5th respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit denying all the contentions of the affidavit filed by the petitioners and it is stated that the resumption order was passed in accordance with the provisions stipulated under the Act duly following due procedure. Any person aggrieved by the said order an appeal lies before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4A of the Act. The 1st petitioner was also given liberty to challenge these orders, by the Court in WP No.13664 of 2015, but the petitioner without availing the remedies available under provision of appeal u/s 4(A) of the Act, has filed the present Writ Petition against order. And it is further stated that the subject land is valuable government land and it is handed over to VUDA.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Meka Rahul Chowdary and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Somisetti Ganesh Babu for respondent No.6.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very resumption order is contrary to the principles of natural justice and no notice was issued as envisaged/ stipulated under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Uppu Pandaiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram, Nellore District and another(1992 (1) HC 434), a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court, quoting Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, held that in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar, authorized by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions subsection (1) of Section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he may, can restore assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir, or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned land to Government for assignment of landless poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force.

10. Counsel for the 6th respondent has urged this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. The rationale for such a request is best known to the counsel, but it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court.

11. The respondent No.5 stated in his counter as per the mandatory requirement of service of notice has been adhered as stipulated in Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. As per the said rule, notices can be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of above or to their authorised agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. In the present case a notice was served on one M. Sarojini Devi who is non-other than the family member of the original assignee and she has been responded to the notice and the procedure has not been contravened in the case on hand and according to the petitioner no Form-II notice is required hence refuted the procedure has not been followed before resumption of the land.

12. In the writ affidavit it was admitted and pleaded, that notices under Form-II need not be served on the transferee as the land was not transferred to any third party and the petitioner's daughter is in possession. Rule 3 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, has been amended after the resumption, and the judgment in Sudalagunta Sugars Limited v. The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another(2017 (2) ALD 529), is not relevant to this case.

13. Consideration by this Court: This Court is not on the merits of the case, technically the Writ Petition is not maintainable, the petitioner No.1 herein was filed Writ Petition No.13664 of 2015 assailing the same proceedings, which is assailed in the present Writ Petition and the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioners herein to challenge the earlier proceedings if any vide order dated 15.11.2022. Though, it is stated that in the absence of the petitioners’ counsel, the said Writ Petition was disposed of. The said order was not assailed by way of intra-Court Appeal. And it is very settled law that the successive writ petition cannot be entertained for the same relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbuja transport services others v. State Transport Tribunal and others(1987 (1) SCC 5) held as follows:

                  The principle underlying R. 1 of O. XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject- matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito beneficium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will lose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason, the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of R. 1 of O. XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in S. 11 of the Code which provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit will not lie in sub-rule (4) of R. 1 of O. XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

                  It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition."

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court referring the above judgment in Radhe Shyam Upadhyaya and Co v. The State of UP and others(2009 (5) SCC 295) has taken the same view.

15. The Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the writ proceedings, the principles underlying therein which are founded on public policy may be extended and made applicable to writ proceedings also in the interest of administration of justice. See the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht and others(2010 (12) SCC 204) it was held as follows:

                  Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotelal Parikh v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1965 SC 1153), Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot (1974) 2 SCC 706 : AIR 1974 SC 2105) and Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT (1987) SCC 5 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 19 : AIR 1987 SC 88."

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Forward Construction Company and others vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri and others8 held that the principles of res judicata applicable to writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as well.

17. In view of the aforementioned decision, the present Writ Petition being the second writ petition, on the same set of facts, for the same cause of action and seeking identical relief as sought in the earlier writ petition, which had been disposed of vide order dated 15.11.2022 directing the petitioners herein to assail the earlier orders if any, on the ground that the Government has already handed over the possession of the land to the VUDA, Visakhapatnam, this Court is not inclined to entertain this present Writ Petition.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.