( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 4 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 30 of Nagarbhavi Village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 8-2-1943. The said land was proposed for acquisition under preliminary notification dated 16-1-1985 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'act' ). This was followed by a final notification dated 5-3-1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act. These two notifications were challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12566 of 1986 before this Court. This court dismissed the writ petition holding the notifications referred to above are valid in its order dated 20th February, 1991. Eight days after the disposal of the above said writ petition, the petitioner again filed the present writ petition on 28-2-1991 seeking for quashing of the award passed, determining the market value in respect of the land referred to above pursuant to the notifications which were impugned in the earlier writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for amendment of the writ petition seeking for quashing of the notifications referred to above which were held valid in writ petition filed earlier.

( 2 ) SRI N. D. R. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the notifications were held to be valid on an earlier occassion by this Court, it is still open for the petitioner to seek for quashing of the said notifications as invalid on the ground that it is not for a public purpose as this ground was neither raised nor considered in the earlier writ petition. In support of this contention, he relied upon several decisions such as S. P. Gupta and Others v President of india and Others, Narayana Raju v State of Karnataka, Narayana raju v State of Karnataka, Narayana Reddy v State of Karnataka, h. M. T. House Building Co-operative Society Limited v Syed Kader, devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Sidramappa v Rajashetty, Arjun Lal v Mriganka Mohan, deva Ram and Another v Ishwar Chand and Another. The decisions referred to above does not in any way help the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE question that arise for consideration in this writ petition is, when once an order is passed upholding the notifications impugned in this writ petition as valid by this Court, can the said notifications be challenged in a subsequent writ petition filed by the same party.

( 4 ) SRI Sanjaya Gowda, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that when once an issue between the parties has been considered in an earlier writ petition and the said order having allowed to be final it is not open for the party or parties to challenge on the same issue or on a different issue in a subsequent writ petition.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the acquisition of the land is for a public purpose or not was neither raised nor considered, in the earlier writ petition. In order to examine the said contention, I looked into the order passed in the earlier writ petition. In the said order the contentions of the petitioner are stated as follows:"it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that no notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was held and that the acquisition for house building co-operative society is bad in law as it cannot be held to be for public purpose". These contentions were ultimately negatived by this Court and held the notification referred to above are valid. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the acquisition whether it is for a public purpose or not has not been considered in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner now in this petition once again sought to contend that the acquisition of land for a society is not for a public purpose relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in H. M. T. House Building co-operative Society, supra. When once an issue whether the acquisition