JUDGMENT 1. - The impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 were published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 9th June, 1960 and 11th May, 1961, respectively. The award under the Act was made on 9.1.1964. The validity of these notifications had been challenged in this Court in writ No. 1487/62 but they have been held to be valid. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition by Indrapuri Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. It was dismissed on 17.9.1974. The judgment is reported in 1975(4) SCC 296 , Indrapuri Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited v. State of Rajasthan . 2. In spite of the fact that the said acquisition proceedings have been held to be valid even by the Supreme Court, this petition has been filed challenging the same notifications. In our considered opinion, this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which should be discouraged by awarding an exemplary cost. 3. The acquired land measuring one bigha and three biswas situate in village Bhojpura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur, was recorded as Khatedari tenancy of Prahlad Krishna Tikkiwal. He died in the year 1962 leaving behind his son Harish Chandra Tikkiwal. The petitioner purchased the said land from him on 26th November, 1970 for a sum of- Rs. 50,000/-, knowing fully well that the land has already been acquired by the Government in 1960 and the award has also been made on 9.1.1964. We need not refer to the series of litigation with regard to this land which started by filing a writ petition No. 1487/62 in this Court, challenging the validity of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The writ petition was dismissed on 28.9.1973 and ultimately the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 17.9.1974. Both the notifications have been held to be valid. 4. The possession of the land was also taken by the Government on 29th August, 1972. 5. in this writ petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the same notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act in 1960 and 1961, respectively, and for a direction to the Government to release the land after issuing notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. 5. in this writ petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the same notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act in 1960 and 1961, respectively, and for a direction to the Government to release the land after issuing notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The writ petition had been filed after twenty six years of the notifications in the official gazette.The petitioner purchased the land from Harish Chandra Tikkiwal in the year 1970 and admittedly the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued in 1960 and 1961. The award has also been made in the year 1964. The issue to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioner has got any right under the sale deed ? 7. The Supreme Court has already held these notifications to be valid in the case filed by Indrapuri Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. If the recorded Khatedar has sold the land to the petitioner, the sale-deed was void one as the vendor had no right or title left in him for executing the saie-deed. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner is barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata. In the case reported in J.T. 1996(1) S.C. 354 (The U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Private Limited) , the Supreme Court held that "after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published in the gazette, any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property." 8. In this case, Shri G.L. Pareek appearing on behalf of the petitioner had addressed the Court mainly on the ground that the purpose of the acquisition does not exist and has cited number of cases, which in our opinion, are not relevant to be discussed for the simple reason that no :mandamus can be issued unless the petitioner has a legal right which has been violated. The petitioner purchased the land in 1970 from a person who did not have any title to it on the date of sale-deed. It was a void deed. Apart from it there is inordinate delay of about twenty six years in filing the writ petition. There is no satisfactory explanation on the record. The petition is being dismissed on the ground of laches as well. 9. It was a void deed. Apart from it there is inordinate delay of about twenty six years in filing the writ petition. There is no satisfactory explanation on the record. The petition is being dismissed on the ground of laches as well. 9. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition with cost which we assess as Rs. 20,000/- to be paid within a period of three months by the petitioner to the State Government.Petition Dismissed. *******