THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9841 OF 2010 Dated 28th April, 2010 Between: Mirza Saifulla Baig and 2 others. …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.M.A.Bari Counsel for respondent No.1: ----- Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.Nandigam Krishna Rao The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition represents a stale and speculative claim by the petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of one Smt.Rabia begum, for payment of compensation by respondent No.2. The petitioners pleaded that Smt.Rabia Begum was the owner of Ac.303.24 guntas of land in Survey No.33 of Jallipally Village and in pursuance of a final decree passed in O.S.No.2 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, the possession of the said land was delivered to her. The petitioners further pleaded that following the proceedings initiated under the A.P.Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’), the said Smt.Rabia Begum has become absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of Ac.49-00 of land in the above-mentioned Survey Number and the remaining Ac.204-35 guntas was treated as surplus. It is their further case that by playing fraud on Smt.Rabia Begum, respondent No.2 entered into an agreement on 02-06-1975 by which they agreed to pay the land price at Rs.450/- per acre with 50% solatium for Ac.49-00 of land and Rs.190/- per acre in respect of the surplus land and that the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by its order, dated 31-05-1979, held that the said agreement is violative of the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioners in spite of the said order, respondent No.2 continued to be in possession of the land and neither the land is acquired nor compensation has been paid for more than 35 years. The petitioners therefore sought for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in initiating acquisition proceedings in respect of Ac.49-00 of land as illegal and unconstitutional. In my considered view, the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing their remedies. They failed to explain why during the lifetime of Smt.Rabia Begum, she has not sought for payment of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after declaration by the Tribunal that the agreement between her and respondent No.2 was not valid. The petitioners also failed to explain the inordinate delay on their part in approaching this Court after the death of Smt.Rabia Begum. The law is well settled that a party, who is indolent and lethargic in asserting their rights, cannot be permitted to revive stale claims by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai[1], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as under: “3) The provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art.226. However, the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art.226 can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable.” In Trilokchand and Motichand v. M.B.Munshi[2], another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, after considering the judgment in Bhailal Bhai (1 supra), held: “Utmost expedition is the sine qua non for such claims. The party aggrieved must explain satisfactorily all semblance of delay. No period can be indicated which may be regarded as the ultimate limit of action for that would taking upon itself legislative functions. In England a period of 6 months has been provided statutorily, but that could be because there is no guaranteed remedy and the matter is one entirely of discretion. In India each case will have to be considered on its own facts. Avoidable delay affecting the merits of the claim, will disentitle a party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. The question is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. This Court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this Court under Article 32, even though he may be within statutory limitation. Similarly in a suitable case, this Court may entertain a petition even after limitation. It will all depend on what the breach of the Fundamental Right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose.” I n P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.[3], the Supreme Court held that a person aggrieved by the promotion of a junior person must approach the High Court within six months or at the most one year. The Supreme Court further held that it would not be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. Considering the present case in the light of the law settled from the above-mentioned Rulings of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioners failed to explain the huge delay of more than 35 years in raising their claim for compensation and, therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.12673 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th April, 2010 lur [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] (1975) 1 SCC 152