S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners 8 in number were the owners of Ac. 16. 35 gts of land comprised in sy. No. 148, situated at Jillalguda village of saroor Nagar Mandal. Ranga Reddy district, which land hereinafter shortly referred to as the schedule land . The schedule land was the agricultural land and the petitioner used to cultivate the same. There was requisition for the schedule land by the Defence Estate Officer, A. P. Circle, at secunderabad, the 2nd respondent herein for public purpose i. e. , usage for Defence metallurgical Research Laboratories (DMRL ). Although the requisition from the authority was for acquiring the entire land needed for the purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ), only some lands were notified under the provisions of the Act and the remaining required lands were notified only under Requisition and Acquisition of immovable Properties Act, 1952 (for short raip Act ). The schedule land was notified under the RAIP Act. The possession of the schedule land was taken on 10-11-1978 pursuant to Memo dated 7-11-1978 issued in proc. No. J2/1329/1977 by conducting panchanama. After taking the possession of the schedule land, the petitioners were being paid rents under the RAIP Act. Although some other lands owned by the petitioners were notified under the Act for the above said purpose, the schedule land was not notified under the Act. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, the petitioners pleading discrimination filed w. P. No. 4684 of 1987 in this Court questioning the action of the respondents in not acquiring the schedule land under the provisions of the Act on the ground that the lands adjacent to the schedule land are acquired under the provisions of the Act and praying for mandamus to notify the schedule land also under the Act. The above writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 10-7-1987 and a direction was issued to the respondent-authority to issue notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and finalise the proceedings including passing of the award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year. The above writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 10-7-1987 and a direction was issued to the respondent-authority to issue notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and finalise the proceedings including passing of the award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year. As against the said judgment of the learned single Judge, the respondents i. e. , the requisitioning authority and the acquisitioning Authority have filed Writ appeal No. 1768 of 1987 and the said Writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10-11-1988 directing that the respondent authorities shall proceed under the Act to acquire the schedule land as expeditiously as possible having regard to the fact that the possession was already taken-over by the respondent authorities as far back as in they year 1978. Against the said judgment of the Division bench, a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court with an application for condonation of delay in CMP No. 10907 of 1989. At the stage of considering the delay application, the Apex Court considered the merits of the matter and by its order dated 1-5-1989 dismissed the Special Leave petition. In spite of the same, as no steps were taken for notifying the schedule land under the Act, the petitioners filed contempt Case No. 329 of 1989 in this court. In the counter filed in the first instance in the said contempt case, it was admitted that possession of the schedule land was taken over from the petitioners in november. 1978 and it was also pleaded that steps were being taken to comply with the orders of this Court. However, subsequently, an additional counter affidavit was filed in the said contempt case stating that the schedule land of the petitioners resembles the land comprised in sy. No. 24/3 of Sultanvala village which was already acquired and possession taken. A division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 10-8-1990 delivered in Contempt Case no. 329 of 1989 held that the possession of the schedule land was taken from the petitioner in the year 1978 and that the respondent authorities were paying the rent to them since then and as such, it is not open for the respondent to reopen the said issue in the contempt proceedings. 329 of 1989 held that the possession of the schedule land was taken from the petitioner in the year 1978 and that the respondent authorities were paying the rent to them since then and as such, it is not open for the respondent to reopen the said issue in the contempt proceedings. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench posted the contempt case to 7-9-1990 for reporting compliance. At this stage, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent stating that Sec. 4 (1) notification is issued for the purpose of acquiring the schedule land and in that regard a Gazette notification dated 4-9-1990 was also placed before the Court. In view of this development the Division Bench closed the contempt case observing:"it is expected that the respondents will take expeditious action for completion of land acquisition proceedings as the petitioner s right to compensation is being delayed. " ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH by the time Section 4 (1) notification was issued, the possession of the schedule land was taken and the buildings were constructed for DMRL, an enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted. In Section 5-A enquiry, despite the fact that the plea of the respondent authorities that the schedule land resembles the land comprised in sy. No. 24/3 of Sultanavala village and that it was already acquired, was rejected in ccno. 329 of 1989, and despite the fact that the writs issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ petition No. 4684 of 1987 and Writ Appeal no. 1768 of 1987 are affirmed by the Apex court while dismissing the S. L. P the said plea was again raised in Section 5-A enquiry. In Section 5-A Enquiry Report, the enquiry Officer has opined that inasmuch as the said plea is rejected by this Court, the objection raised is untenable and it is liable to be overruled. In spite of such report under section 5-A of the Act and also in spite of the fact that a declaration was published under section 6 of the Act, award was not passed within the stipulated period as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act. When the proceedings were delayed, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 13229 of 1993 seeking direction to the respondents to pass award. When the proceedings were delayed, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 13229 of 1993 seeking direction to the respondents to pass award. Thereafter, the Special Deputy collector, Land Acquisition (General), hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein passed the award dated 15-9-1993 in proceedings No. P/1430/89 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per Sq. yard, but at the same time denying compensation to the petitioners by stating that the schedule land was already acquired as part of land in Sy. No. 24/3 of Sultanavala village and as such the petitioners are not entitled for grant of compensation as fixed. ( 4 ) AFTER the above award was passed by the 1st respondent on 15-9-1993 the petitioners filed C. C. No. 604 of 1994 complaining that the 1st respondent, by passing the above kind of award, has violated the orders of this Court made in the earlier writ proceedings referred to above. During the course of hearing of the said contempt case, the Court directed the respondent authorities through the learned advocate General who represented them to cause an enquiry and verify whether the petitioners were paid any compensation in the earlier acquisition. In the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, it is stated that there is no relationship and linkage between the petitioners and the awardees of the acquisition of the land comprised in Sy. No. 24 of Sultanavala village and that none of the petitioners are awardees in those earlier land acquisition proceedings. Simultaneously, the petitioners made an application under Section 18 of the act seeking reference of their case to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. However, no orders were passed on the said application within the time on the ground that no compensation is awarded in favour of the petitioners under the award and as such no reference under Section 18 of the act could be made to the Civil Court. However, no orders were passed on the said application within the time on the ground that no compensation is awarded in favour of the petitioners under the award and as such no reference under Section 18 of the act could be made to the Civil Court. Under those circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petition being W. P. No. 9727 of 1998 praying for the following relief: "for the reasons disclosed in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the matter under Section 18 of Land Acquisition act to competent Civil Court for proper determination of the market value of the land and the extent of the land pursuant to Award in Procgs no. P/1430/89 dated 15-9-1993 on the file of the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary, by further declaring the award to the extent of holding that petitioners are not entitled for compensation with regard to land in sy. No. 148 of jillalguda village, saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district as illegal and arbitrary by directing the respondents to forthwith pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners by further directing the respondents to refer the matter under Section 18 of Land acquisition Act to competent Civil court; award costs and pass such other or further orders, as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " ( 5 ) OPPOSING the writ petition, the 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 8-6-1999. In the counter affidavit dated 8-6-1999, it is prayed that the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed in C. C. No. 604 of 1994 in W. P. No. 4687 of 1987 be read as part and parcel of the counter affidavit in the present writ petition. Further, in the counter affidavit, it is claimed that since the schedule land is already acquired and the compensation paid treating it as part of the land in Sy. No. 24/3 of Saroornagar village, payment of compensation again to the petitioners in respect of the schedule land does not arise. Further, in the counter affidavit, it is claimed that since the schedule land is already acquired and the compensation paid treating it as part of the land in Sy. No. 24/3 of Saroornagar village, payment of compensation again to the petitioners in respect of the schedule land does not arise. ( 6 ) SINCE the 1st respondent has adopted the counter affidavit filed in C. C. No. 604 of 1994, as counter affidavit in W. P. No. 9727 of 1998 also, the relevant averments in the counter affidavit in support of the plea that the schedule land is already acquired and compensation paid needs to be noticed. In the additional counter affidavit filed in c. C. No. 604 of 1994, dated 28-11-1995, it is stated:" (2) The perusal of the old records reveal that the land covered by Sy. No. 148 of Jillaguda was already acquired in the year of 1968, treating it as a portion of Sy. No. 24/3 of sultanvala. The details of land acquired out of Sy. No. 24 of Sultanvala at various times are as follows: