JUDGMENT: P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J ;-In a ceaseless campaign .against acquisition of their lands, the owner are in appeal against the order of a learned Judge dismissing yet another writ petition filed by them. 2. Appellant No.1, a private limited company, is the owner of an extent of Acs.2-06 guntas in Sy.No.575 of Ghatkesar Village, Hayatnagar Taluq, Ranga Reddy District. It claims title under registered sale deed No.475 of 1982 dated 30.1.1982. Appellant No.2, a partnership firm and a sister concern of appellant No.1, owns an extent of Acs.2-08 guntas in the same survey number having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.2084 of 1983 dated 5.4.1983. Parts of these lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter, 'the Act') for widening/four laning National Highway No.202 (Hyderabad to Yadagiri Section). 3. Notification under Section 3A(l) of the Act was published in the Gazette of India dated 27.11.2009. In response, 12 objection petitions under Section 3C(1) of the Act were received, including that of the appelfants. Notices were issued on 3.2.2010 requiring the objection petitioners to attend an enquiry on 15.2.2010 before the competent authority, the Land Acquisition Officer-cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division. The appellants were represented by Counsel in the said enquiry. After due consideration, the objections were disposed of by the competent authority by order dated 22.2.2010. Notification qnder Section 3D of the Act was published thereafter in the Gazette of India dated 23.3.2010. Public notice dated 15.4.2010 was issued under Section 3G of the Act and published in 'Sakshi' and 'The Hindu' Daily Newspapers on 18.4.2010. Individual notices were also issued in this regard to all the interested persons, including the appellants. Upon determination of the compensation payable, as per due procedure, an Award was passed on 29.9.2010. Possession of the subject lands was handed over to the National Highways Authority of India on 15.2.2011 under a panchnama. As per the communication dated 31.12.2011 of the General Manager (Technical) and Commercial Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Hyderabad, the formation of the road was also taken up and completed upto WMM level. This aspect is however disputed by the appellants. 4. As per the communication dated 31.12.2011 of the General Manager (Technical) and Commercial Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Hyderabad, the formation of the road was also taken up and completed upto WMM level. This aspect is however disputed by the appellants. 4. Now, a quick look at the litigation initiated by the appellants: In the first instance, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.980 of 2010 seeking a declaration simpliciter that the action of the respondents in acquiring their lands in Survey No.575 at Ghatkesar Village, Ranga Reddy District, was illegal. By order dated 27.1.2010 a learned Judge, taking note of the fact that the objections filed by the. appellants under Section 3C of the Act were pending before the competent authority who was willing to consider the same despite the fact that they were filed beyond time, disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider the said objections independently on their own merits and to take further steps thereafter in accordance with law. 5. As stated supra, the objections filed by the appellants and others were considered and rejected by the competent authority under order dated 22.2.2010 and further steps were initiated under the Act, including issuance of a notice under Section 3G thereof. At that stage, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.9305 of 20] 0 seeking cance11ation of the Section 3G notice dated 15.4.2010 on the ground that the same was issued without disposing of their representation dated 15.2.2010. They also sought cancellation of the notification dated 27.11.2009 issued under Section 3A of the Act (wrongly mentioned as 'Section 3C') and a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession over the subject lands. During the hearing of this writ petition, the appellants complained that they had not received the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the competent authority rejecting their objections. Thereupon, a copy of the same was handed over to their Counsel in Court. 6. They then filed Writ Petition No.10269 of 2010, from which the present appeal arises. Their prayer in this writ petition was for cancellation of the notice dated 15.4.20 I 0 issued under Section 3G of the Act (wrongly mentioned as a notification for acquisition of their lands) as well as the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the competent authority rejecting their objections. 7. Their prayer in this writ petition was for cancellation of the notice dated 15.4.20 I 0 issued under Section 3G of the Act (wrongly mentioned as a notification for acquisition of their lands) as well as the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the competent authority rejecting their objections. 7. Thereafter, when Writ Petition No.9305 of 2010 came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants infom1ed the Court that as an order had been passed under Section 3C of the Act and as the appellants had filed a writ petition questioning the same, the cause in the writ petition did not necessitate adjudication. In consequence, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 28.4.2010. 8. Writ Petition No. 10269 of 2010 was separately dismissed under order dated 6.10.2010 by another learned Judge, taking note of the fact that the appellants' lands were acquired for a public purpose and such acquisition was in accordance with the due process of law entailing appropriate compensation being paid to them. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred this appeal.' 9. Things however did not stop there. The Chairman and Managing Director of appellant No.1 then filed Writ Petition No.29362 of 2011 in his individual capacity. Therein, he sought a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession over the land admeasuring. Acs.2.06 guntas in Survey No.575/EE (575/ 4) of Ghatkesar Village and Mandai, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the notification dated 27.11.2009 issued under Section 3A of the Act on the ground that the same was violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. He sought a declaration that the said notification and the consequential notification dated 23.3.2010 issued under Section 3D of the Act were illegal and contrary to Section 3A(2) of the Act. 10. By order dated 3.11.2011, a learned Judge dismissed this writ petition. The learned Judge took note of the fact that by the order passed in Writ Petition No.10269 of 2009, the pleas raised as to the validity of the actions under Sections 3C and 3G of the Act had been conclusively rejected and opined that it was not open to the petitioner therein, having suffered such judgment, to challenge the Section 3A notification which was earlier in point of time. The learned Judge observed that on the affirmation of the action taken under Section 30 of the Act, the Court had impliedly validated all the proceedings which preceded' .it and concluded that even if the petitioner ad not specifically challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, he could not be permitted to file a separate writ petition as it would be barred by the principle underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC and the doctrine of constructive res judicata. 11. The order in Writ Petition No.29362 of 2011 was confim1ed by us in Writ Appeal No.1085 of 2011 on 1.12.2011. Observations therein are of relevance: "7. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the challenge made by the present appellant. We cannot appreciate successive writ petitions being filed by the appellant either in his own name or in the name of his son or in the name of his company on the same subject. In our opinion, this would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and such kind of litigation must definitely :be discouraged. It was open to the appellant to challenge the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act on either occasions but he failed to do so. The subsequent notification issued under Section 3G of the Act having been upheld, the appellant cannot now be allowed to re-open the proceedings and put the clock back." 12. It may be noticed that in Writ Petition No.9305 of 2010 the notification dated 27.11.2009 was also challenged. This notification was issued under Section 3A of the Act though the appellants erroneously projected that the same was issued under Section 3C of the Act. This writ petition was dismissed at the instance of the appellants themselves. Thus, the appellants did, in fact, challenge the notification under Section 3A of the Act but did not pursue the same and got the writ petition dismissed as infructuous. 13. The challenge presently is only against the notice dated 15.4.20 I 0 issued under Section 3G of the Act and the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the competent authority rejecting the objections of the appellants and others under Section 3C(2) of the Act. 13. The challenge presently is only against the notice dated 15.4.20 I 0 issued under Section 3G of the Act and the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the competent authority rejecting the objections of the appellants and others under Section 3C(2) of the Act. Once the challenge of the appellants to the notifications dated 27.11.2009 and 23.3.2010 under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act respectively met with failure, the ineluctable question that arises is whether the present challenge would survive. 14. The Act prescribes a complete code in itself, under Sections 3A to 3J, for acquisition of land for the building, maintenance, management and operation of highways. The process is initiated' under Section 3A(l) of the Act upon the satisfaction of the Central Government that land is required In this regard and a consequential notification is issued in the Official Gazette declaring its intention to acquire such land. Section 3A(2) mandates a brief description of the acquired land in the said notification. Section 3C(1) provides for persons interested in the land notified under Section 3A(l) to object to such acquisition within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification. Section 3C(2) requires the competent authority, being the person or authority authorized and notified by the Central Government under Section 3(a) of the Act, to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or through a legal practitioner and to either allow or disallow such objections, by order. Section 30(1) provides that where no objections are received or are received and disposed of under Section 3C(2) and upon submission of a report in that regard, the Central Government shall declare by notification in the Official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purposes of the highway. Section 30(2) postulates that on the publication of the declaration under Section 30(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section 3G deals with determination of the amount payable as compensation. Sub-section (1) of Section 3G mandates that for land acquired under the Act, the amount determined by the order of the competent authority shall be paid. Section 3G(3) posits that before proceeding to determine the amount payable, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in the vernacular language, inviting claims from all persons interested in the land. Section 3G(3) posits that before proceeding to determine the amount payable, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in the vernacular language, inviting claims from all persons interested in the land. Section 3G(5) provides that if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, such party may seek determination through arbitration. 15. It is clear from the above statutory scheme that Section 3G of the Act only deals with determination of the compensation and prescribes the procedure to be followed by the competent authority. Pertinent to note, no complaint is made by the appellants as to any procedural lapses in this regard. A public notice under Section 3G of the Act was published, as mandated, in two local newspapers, one of which was in the vernacular language - 'Sakshi' Telugu Newspaper. It is not the case of the appellants that they were denied a hearing pursuant to this notice. There being no failure, actual or alleged, in abiding by the statutory procedure, we find no merit in the challenge of the appellants to the public notice dated 15.4.2010 issued under Section 3G of the Act. 16. As regards their challenge to the competent authority's order dated 22.2.2010 under Section 3C(2) of the Act, except for a bald assertion that their objections have not been discussed therein, the appellants did not spell out any specific grievance. The order dated 22.2.2010 of the competent authority refers to the contents of the appellants' objection petition and details the reasons as to why the same were rejected. Though the appellants allege before us that the order dated 22.2.2010 is unresponsive to their accusation that the original alignment of the highway was changed to facilitate a politician, we find that their objection petition did not advert to any specific or detailed allegation in this regard. 17. Further, on the basis of the report submitted by the competent authority to the Central Government after rejection of the objections under his order dated 22.2.2010, the Central Government issued the declaration under Section 3D of the Act on 23.3.2010. The challenge of the Managing Director of appellant No.1 to the said declaration already met with failure in Writ Petition No.29362 of 2011 and Writ Appeal No.1085 of 2011. The challenge of the Managing Director of appellant No.1 to the said declaration already met with failure in Writ Petition No.29362 of 2011 and Writ Appeal No.1085 of 2011. The appellants cannot therefore be pem1itted to turn back the clock at this stage and maintain a challenge to the rejection of their objections by the competent authority under order dated 22.2.2010. 18. Viewed thus, both the payers in WP No.10269 of 2009 were without merit. The order of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition is therefore unassailable. 19. Sri P. Venugopal, learned Counsel representing the appellants, however asserted that his clients were being forcibly deptived of their lands and he should be permitted to raise a challenge against the preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009 .issued under Section 3A of the Act. It is his contention, that the said notification did not. divulge the full description of the lands to be acquired and fell foul of the requirement of Section 3A(2) of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory, (2005) 13 SCC 477 . 20. Though the Section 3A(1) notification dated 27.11.2009 is not in issue before us and the challenge in this regard raised in Writ Petition Nos.9305 of 2010, 29362 of 2011 and Writ Appeal No.1085 of 2011, already met with failure, we have given due consideration to this aspect of the matter also. 21. It may be noticed that in Barangore Jute Factory's case (supra), the notification under Section 3A of the Act was• itself under challenge and was found bereft of particulars as to which part of the bigger chunk of land notified was being acquired there under. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed that in this kind of cases a pl~ of the area under acquisition was usually made part of the notification to show that the requirement of description of land was met but, on examination, it found that such a site plan did not form part of the impugned notification in that case. 22. In the present case, however, the notification dated 27.11.2009 specifically stated that land plans and other details of the lands covered by the notification were available and could be inspected by interested persons at the office of the competent authority. 22. In the present case, however, the notification dated 27.11.2009 specifically stated that land plans and other details of the lands covered by the notification were available and could be inspected by interested persons at the office of the competent authority. Thus, the appellants, in the event they entertained\ any doubt with regard to the description I of the land notified for acquisition, could have approached the office of the competent authority for resolving the same. They did not choose to do so. It is not their case that such land plans were not available though stated so in the notification. 23. Reference in this regard may also be made to the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of India v. M Ramesh Babu, W A No.504 of 2007 and WP No.378 of 2007 dated 19.9.2007. Referring to Barangore Jute Factory's case (supra), the Division Bench observed that if the notification made it clear that the land plans and other details of the land covered by the notification were available in the office of the competent authority for inspection by interested persons, it was for those who thought that there was ambiguity in the particulars incorporated in the notification to approach the competent authority and inspect the land plans and other details and thereafter file their objections. The Division Bench held against the land owners in that case as they did not choose to adopt that course. The same is the situation in the present case. Thus, technicalities aside, even on merits this challenge warrants rejection. 24. That having been said, we cannot take kindly to a party resorting to blatant abuse of the process of this Court by filing successive writ petitions on the same issue, attempting to reduce the curial exercise to a mere gamble. Such conduct on the part of a litigant has to be deprecated in no uncertain terms. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P., (2008) 1 SCC 560 , the Supreme Court observed: "16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material facts, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. 25. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material facts, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. 25. We cannot tl1erefore ignore the unabashed and flagrant abuse of process by the appellants in initiating multiple proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution on the same cause of action. 26. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within two (2) months from today. WAMP No.433 of 20 II shall stand dismissed in consequence. 27. Post on 20.4.20 12 for reporting compliance.