1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final consideration at the admission stage itself. 2. In OWP No. 501/2013 following reliefs have been claimed:- "Mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly adhere to the project taken under Core Network New Connectivity Priority List (CNCPL) issued by Chief Executive Officer JKRRDA (respondent No. 1) executed through PMGSY Agency for the construction of road from Km 10th of T 04 to Upper Ghullota; and for the issuance of Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from constructing road at any other point except as provided in the project as well as in the work order i.e. from point, km 10th of T 04 (Bhimber Gali to Mendhar) to Upper Glota and for the issuance of- Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from constructing the road through agricultural land (Paddy Crop Land) in violation of Standing orders and circulars issued by the Govt. from time to time and for the issuance of- Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to conduct an in depth enquiry into the circumstances under which the alignment of the road project being shifted for conferring illegal benefits to Respondent No. 12 and 13 and pushing the officers for such gross violation and share misuse of public money and by putting additional burden on Govt. Exchequer." 3. Adverting to facts, be it seen that petitioners 1 to 3 are residents of Village Kotian while petitioner No.4 is resident of village Ari Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch. Their case is that under package no. 11-80 phase 7 stage 1, road was to be constructed from T 04 to Gulhotta. Upper under Core Network New Connectivity Priority List (CNCPL). T 04 is stated to be the code name given to existing road from Bhimber Gali (BG) to Mendhar. According to petitioners, road was to be constructed from a point km 10th of T 04 to Upper Gulhotta so as to provide connectivity to maximum possible population based on survey conducted by Experts under PMGSY Programme. According to petitioners this road would benefit more than three thousand inhabitants of Upper Kotan, Upper Kandi, Upper Gulhotta and a number of small hamlets/habitations. According to petitioners this road would benefit more than three thousand inhabitants of Upper Kotan, Upper Kandi, Upper Gulhotta and a number of small hamlets/habitations. Respondent No. 4-Anwar Hussain Shah, Additional District Development Commissioner, Poonch stated to be a local resident, is alleged to have prevailed upon respondents 5 to 7 to change the alignment of the road and instead of starting the road from KM 10th of T 04, site plan was prepared to start construction of the road from a point which is 2 km away from Mendhar city to pass through areas having scant population and would benefit respondent No. 12-Sarfaraz Choudhary posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) in PMGSY Wing of the PWD who is said to have installed a stone-crusher at Mohalla Seri. It is, therefore, alleged that the alignment of road was shifted to provide connectivity to the stone-crusher of respondents No. 12 to the detriment of public interest Petitioners are thus, aggrieved of change of alignment of the road. 4. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 to 7 are the State and Engineers of PMGSY programme. They have contested the petition on the ground that final award has been passed by the Revenue Authorities after following all the legal formalities which has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is pleaded that petitioners had earlier filed OWP No. 1114/2012 and the respondents have been directed by this Court to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with rules and policy of Land Acquisition Act (for brevity `Act'). It is further pleaded that after proper survey in the year 2008 NRRDA, Government of India sanctioned construction of road from km 10th to T-04 to Gulhotta Upper Package No. JK11-80, length 6.0 kms taking off from village Kotan. The target habitation of this Scheme was Gulhotta Upper with village Kotan and Ari as incidental habitations. Land was accordingly acquired project was implemented and contract was awarded. It is pleaded that the petitioners have already been connected with the road from Mankote to Dhargloon and they are not direct beneficiaries of proposed PMGSY road. It is pleaded that road length of 475 meters only falls in village Kotan from RD 0-200 and the road beyond RD-200 stands already constructed. It is pleaded that there is a dispute between two groups of people who have personal scores to settle. It is pleaded that road length of 475 meters only falls in village Kotan from RD 0-200 and the road beyond RD-200 stands already constructed. It is pleaded that there is a dispute between two groups of people who have personal scores to settle. Deputy Commissioner, Poonch had visited the spot in July, 2012 and after finding no substance in the contentions of petitioners, he directed SDM/Tehsildar Mendhar to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land. Deputy Commissioner had considered the technical points involved in the issue. Original survey of the project conducted in the year 2008 was approved by the Government of India and there was no occasion for respondents to change the alignment of the road. 5. Respondents 3, 8 to 11 have contested the petition on same pleas. It is pleaded that the issue involved is purely technical issue which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Regarding acquisition of Paddy land it is submitted that the Circular issued by the Financial Commissioner prohibiting construction thereon cannot supersede provisions of the Act providing for compulsory acquisition. 6. Vide order dated 15.4.2013 passed in CMA No. 672/2013 execution of work was stayed. The interim direction was however, modified by virtue of order dated 03.06.2013 restricting the stay order to the land of petitioners. Respondents No. 8 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (Asstt. Collector Land Acquisition) Mendhar was directed to file an affidavit to indicate whether any final award has been passed in respect of the land of the petitioners. He filed an affidavit stating therein that on the indent placed by Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Division Mendhar, for Acquisition of Land for construction of road from Kotan to Galutta at Village Kotan, revenue record of Khasra Nos. 13, 62, 15, 16, 59, 54, 55/1, 58, 57, 29, 24, 23, 35 and 37 total measuring 14 kanals 01 marlas was got prepared from Tehsildar Mendhar and authenticated by the Executive Engineer PMGSY Division Mendhar Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and as no objections were received, final award was passed on 28.06.2013 with regard to 14 kanals 01 Marlas of land of village Kotan. It is stated in the affidavit that the land of the petitioners under survey Nos. It is stated in the affidavit that the land of the petitioners under survey Nos. 28, 58, 59 and 62 total measuring 16 Marlas was notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, as is reflected in the final award which included 08 Marlas of land each respectively belonging to petitioner No. 1 and 3. No land of petitioners 2 and 4 came under the alignment of PMGSY Road. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 03.10.2012. That the deponent was posted as SDM Mendhar thereafter on 22.03.2013. Thus, the deponent had no knowledge about filing of objections by the petitioners. The receipt register does not reflect filing of objections by the petitioners. Objections received by P. A never formed part of the official record of Acquisition proceedings. That is how final award came to be passed with no objections having been filed in the matter. It is further stated in the affidavit that thrust of petitioners pertains to change of alignment and not the procedural compliance of the Acquisition Proceedings which have been explained by the Chief Engineer PMGSY. 7. OWP No. 1411/2013 was subsequently filed by some inhabitants of village Lower Kotan, Mohalla Uri Tehsil Mendhar, which included petitioners 1 and 3 in OWP No. 501/2013. Through the medium of this petition legality and legitimacy of land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the official respondents resulting in passing of award dated 28.06.2013 stands assailed, on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioners to notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act have not been considered and the entire award making process is enigmatic. 8. Respondents have contested the petition on pleas similar to the one raised in OWP No. 501/2013. It is further pleaded that OWP No. 1114/2012 filed on the same cause of action has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-agitate the matter, if fresh cause of action arose. It is pleaded that in the earlier two writ petitions notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act have not been assailed and the relief having been relinquished, though available at that time, petitioners were debarred from re-agitating the matter in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. 9. Heard rival sides at length and perused the record. 10. 9. Heard rival sides at length and perused the record. 10. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that alignment for Upper Gulhotta road under PMGSY Scheme had been approved by the Central Government after taking into consideration the technical feasibility report of Experts. It can hardly be the subject of controversy that the opinion of Experts in the field cannot be lightly brushed aside and the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of Experts. It further emerges from pleadings of the parties that only land of petitioners 1 and 3 in OWP No. 501/2013 comes under the alignment and these petitioners had earlier joined hands with others as petitioners in OWP No. 1411/2013. It is also not disputed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has not been assailed in OWP No. 501/2013. Same is the case with OWP No. 1114/2012 filed by the residents of Gulhotta including petitioners in OWP No. 501/2012 which stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-agitate the matter in the event a fresh cause of action, other than the one set out in the petition, arises. Admittedly, notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act for Acquisition of Land for construction of road in question was not assailed in this petition. Therefore, on the principle engrafted under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC such petitioners are precluded from re-agitating the matter founded on the same cause of action. Co-petitioners' case not being separable from such cause of action, petitions do not survive for consideration. 11. It is significant to note that petitioners have not raised any plea of discrimination in the matter of acquisition as a ground to assail the acquisition proceedings. Admittedly final award has been passed and possession has been taken over by the official respondents who have completed the construction of road but for a small stretch of 475 meters involving the land of petitioners 1 and 3. It is not disputed that land has been acquired for construction of road under PMGSY, Scheme and such acquisition has been made for public purpose. 12. Respondents have contested the plea of petitioners 1 and 3 regarding filing of objections to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is not disputed that land has been acquired for construction of road under PMGSY, Scheme and such acquisition has been made for public purpose. 12. Respondents have contested the plea of petitioners 1 and 3 regarding filing of objections to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. From perusal of the affidavit filed by the Collector land Acquisition, Mendhar it comes to fore that no objections were filed by the petitioners to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, though in the 2nd affidavit he has admitted that such objections had been received by P.A, but not reflected in the receipt register. Those objections were neither placed before the Collector for consideration nor found reflection in the receipt register. This is an aspect, which needs to be probed by vigilance organization to fix responsibility in regard to culpability of the official who has suppressed the record paving way for passing of the award without placing objections of the petitioners before respondent-Collector for consideration. This, however, would not affect the merits of the case, as it has already been noticed that notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act have not been assailed in the two petitions and OWP No. 1114/2012 could not have been maintained as it was founded on the same cause of action. 13. It is also not disputed that most of the land owners, barring the petitioners, have already received compensation after passing of the final award and road has been completed but for a small stretch of 475 meters involving land of petitioners 1 and 3. In the wake of petitioners not having assailed the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act in the first instance and in absence of allegations of discrimination coupled with the fact that the alignment has been approved by the Central Government based on technical report of Experts, development plan of the area providing connectivity to the remote villages culminating at Gulhotta cannot be permitted to be defeated by taking resort to recurrent litigation when bulk of the villagers have not only accepted the final award, but also received the compensation there under. In the background of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere. In the background of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere. There is nothing to reveal that compulsory execution of land for public purpose has not followed best procedure or that fundamental rights of petitioners have been infringed. 14. I do not find any merit in these petitions. Same are, accordingly, dismissed. Connected CMP(s) shall also stand dismissed. 15. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.