Order : (RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.) Declaring the action of the 3 rd respondent-Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau in not conducting independent enquiry and forwarding the complaint to the 4 th respondent-District Collector who in turn appointed 5 th respondent-Joint Collector who in turn closed enquiry by marking a copy to the 3 rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Achyuth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Laxmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 & 8 and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 4 to 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the land an extent of Ac.302.52 cents in Bukkayapalli Village has been acquired in the year 1977 for the purpose of submergence under Somasila Project and an award vide Award No.4/1980, dated 12.12.1980 was passed. As per the said award, the acquired land was categorized into 6 categories and different variety of trees was identified and compensation was paid at different rates. Having not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the respective claimants requested for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the same was referred to the Civil Court and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.43 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa. For the first time, the claimant sought compensation for pomegranate trees and the same was not considered by the said Court and no award has been passed and no compensation was fixed for the said trees. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer approached this Court and got filed appeal A.S.No.1749 of 2004 in which the claimants also filed cross objections (SR).No.3962 of 2008, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the appeal and cross objections took up the pomegranate trees into consideration for enhancement of compensation and accordingly, fixed compensation for pomegranate trees. Learned counsel further submitted that similarly in the year1992, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired lands with structures and trees in Malinenipatnam Village of Kadapa District for submergence under foreshore water of Somasila Project and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 05.09.1995 and accordingly paid compensation even for pomegranate trees which are in existence. Learned counsel further submitted that similarly in the year1992, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired lands with structures and trees in Malinenipatnam Village of Kadapa District for submergence under foreshore water of Somasila Project and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 05.09.1995 and accordingly paid compensation even for pomegranate trees which are in existence. The said matter was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.54 of 1999 wherein the said Court enhanced the compensation three times higher than the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Having not satisfied with the same, the claimants preferred A.S.No.3833 of 2003 before this Court and this Court placing reliance on the judgment in A.S.No.3798 of 2000 enhanced the compensation at Rs.700/- per tree, on 29.08.2008, accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the compensation amount in the Court. Thereafter, the claimants in A.S.No.3798 of 2000 which is the basis for enhancing compensation in A.S.No.3833 of 2003, filed a review petition and sought review of rate fixed for pomegranate trees at the rate fixed in A.S.No.1749 of 2004. This Court allowed the review petition in the year 2013 and enhanced compensation @ Rs.2000/- per tree. Knowing the said fact, the claimants in A.S.No.3833 of 2000 also filed review petition which was reviewed and enhanced the compensation @ Rs.2000/- per tree on 17.08.2016. After noticing that the orders in A.S.No.3798 of 2000 has been reviewed by duly taking into consideration of the judgment passed in A.S.No.1749 of 2004, the claimants in A.S.No.3833 of 2000 was also filed review. Though the judgment in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 is not applicable, suppressing the said facts got reviewed the orders in A.S.No.3833 of 2000. In the said circumstances, the government has released funds for payment of compensation for pomegranate trees and deposited the same before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet, as in some cases for release of funds is at G.O. stage, the Rajampet Court not yet paid the said amount to the claimants. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 30.01.2020 to the 2 nd respondent for initiating appropriate enquiry in respect of fraud in getting compensation awarded to the pomegranate trees in A.S.No.3833 of 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 30.01.2020 to the 2 nd respondent for initiating appropriate enquiry in respect of fraud in getting compensation awarded to the pomegranate trees in A.S.No.3833 of 2000. As no action has been taken by the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner got filed writ petition by way of PIL vide W.P.(PIL).No.75 of 2020 and the same was dismissed. During pendency of the PIL, the 3 rd respondent forwarded the petitioner’s representation to the 4 th respondent, who in turn appointed the 5 th respondent as an enquiry officer. After dismissal of the PIL, when the respondents contemplate to withdraw the enquiry, the petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.No.16185 of 2020. Pending writ petition, a report has been filed stating that the enquiry has been completed and in view of the same, the writ petition was closed on 22.04.2021 leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the said report if necessary. Aggrieved by the said report, the present writ petition has been filed and the same is illegal, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. 4. Sri Laxmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioners lands have been acquired and award has been passed and the same has been referred to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Act, 2013 and got numbered as L.A.O.P.Nos.204 & 205 of 1999 wherein the compensation has been fixed at Rs.300/- per pomegranate tree. Thereafter, the State preferred appeal before this Court in L.A.A.S.No.1368 of 2002 & 495 of 2002 in which the claimants got filed cross objections in L.A.A.S.SR.Nos.8556 & 8557 of 2008 and this Court on 25.08.2008 allowed the cross objections enhancing compensation from Rs.300/- to Rs.700/- per tree and dismissed the appeals. The claimants, after noticing that the similar set of facts in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 that the compensation has been set on higher side, filed a review in L.A.A.S MP.No.183 of 2017 and this Court, by duly taking into consideration the order passed in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 enhanced compensation from Rs.700/- to Rs.2000/- per tree. The claimants, after noticing that the similar set of facts in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 that the compensation has been set on higher side, filed a review in L.A.A.S MP.No.183 of 2017 and this Court, by duly taking into consideration the order passed in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 enhanced compensation from Rs.700/- to Rs.2000/- per tree. Pursuantly, the claimants/unofficial respondents approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and got filed S.L.P.No.10044 of 2018 and after hearing, the Apex Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- and accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Rt.Nos.533 & 552 in the year 2019 accorded sanction for payment of compensation as per the enhanced decree amount covered in L.A.O.P.No.209 of 1999 and batch. The petitioner herein having unsuccessful before this Court in the Public Interest Litigation, to harass the claimants, gave a vague representation to the Anti Corruption Bureau as if some fraud took place. Non consideration of the said representation, filed the present writ petition. Pursuantly, enquiry was conducted on the said representation and submitted report. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition in W.P.No.16185 of 2020. Now, closing the enquiry by the authority has been challenged in the present writ petition. In fact, the petitioner has no locus file a writ petition. Once the Public Interest Litigation has been dismissed for lack of fraud, ventilating the very same fraud independently by filing the present writ petition not only operates constructive res judicata but also amounts to abuse of process of law. The writ petition has to be dismissed by imposing heavy costs on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in fact no counter is required as no cause of action is there in the present case, the petitioner has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioner has questioned the report solely on the ground that the petitioner has asked for independent enquiry by the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau but that has been enquired by the Joint Collector. The petitioner cannot choose the particular official to enquire into the alleged fraud. The petitioner has not made out any case for maintaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition deserves dismissal and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The petitioner cannot choose the particular official to enquire into the alleged fraud. The petitioner has not made out any case for maintaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition deserves dismissal and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. The petitioner herein earlier got filed a writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation vide W.P.PIL.No.75 of 2020. The relief sought therein reads as follows: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in initiating enquiry and action against persons/culprits who are responsible for distribution and from misappropriating the public funds from public exchequer in paying land acquisition compensation for nonexistent trees particularly for pomegranate trees at higher rate by placing reliance on judgment in A S No 1749/2004 and pass such other or further orders deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case” The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Public Interest Litigation holding that the Court is not inclined to interfere in the said Writ Petition (PIL). 8. Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner got filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.16185 of 2020. 8. Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner got filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.16185 of 2020. The relief sought therein reads as follows: “pleased to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to close the enquiry initiated by respondent No 6 on the instructions of respondent No 3 pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner into the allegations of fraud in getting compensation amount awarded in the land acquisition proceedings which is subject matter of AS No 1749 of 2004 before this Honble Court by not bringing the correct facts to the notice of this Honble Court abruptly pursuant to disposal of WP PIL No 75 of 2020 for extraneous reasons as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to complete the enquiry and take appropriate action against the people who played fraud in getting compensation awarded for nonexisting trees particularly pomegranate trees in the land acquisition proceedings which is subject matter of AS No 1749 of 2004 before this Honble Court by not bringing the correct facts to the notice of this Honble Court in the interest of justice and pass…” It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the filing of the said writ petition, as the authority has filed a report which is available on record, the writ petition was closed under its order dated 22.04.2021. 9. The writ petitioner once again filed this writ petition for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not conducting independent enquiry and forwarding the complaint to the 4th respondent-District Collector who in turn appointed 4th respondent-Joint Collector who in turn closing the enquiry by marking a copy to 3rd respondent as illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the alleged enquiry report and further direct 3rd respondent to do independent enquiry in the matter in the interest of justice” 10. The main grievance that has been raised is that when a representation has been made to the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, the said authority, without enquiring on the petitioner’s representation referred same to the District Collector who in turn referred the same to the Joint Collector. The main grievance that has been raised is that when a representation has been made to the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, the said authority, without enquiring on the petitioner’s representation referred same to the District Collector who in turn referred the same to the Joint Collector. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner cannot choose a particular officer to enquire on the representation. In fact, the report of the 6 th respondent was not independently questioned by the petitioner but however sought to set aside the same. Once the Division Bench of this Court has not interfered with the alleged fraud so raised by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot ventilate further and file independent writ petitions without there being any infringement of legal rights. To maintain a writ petition the petitioner has to plead and prove that legal rights existed either statutory or constitutional right and it has infringed or invaded or threatened to infringe or invade by the respondents. In the absence of establishing the existence of right, its infringement or invasion of threat, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the writ of mandamus. The said principle is a well settled principle. 11. Even otherwise, the allegation of the petitioner revolves around the judgment in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 that particular judgment has already been brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred Public Interest Litigation and the Division Bench has not interfered. In the said circumstances, the petitioner still ventilating on the very same judgment by filing one writ petition or the other is nothing but abuse of process of law. This Court in fact has to dismiss the writ petition by imposing exemplary costs. However, taking a lenient view, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition by cautioning the writ petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.