HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30214 of 2011 Date : 15-11-2011 Between : Marisetti Venkata Swamy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA), Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri A. Veeraswamy Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by a person who slept over his purported rights for years on end and knocked at the doors of this Court, after passing of decades after arising of cause of action. The petitioner’s land was acquired in the year 1984. O n 27-1-1984, an award was passed in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner has given a statement, a copy of which is filed by him in this Writ Petition, wherein he has stated that he will not accept the compensation as fixed by the Government; that he earns a minimum income of Rs.10,000/- per acre by cultivation and that the compensation may be fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre. The petitioner further stated that he was receiving compensation under protest and that he would abide by the compensation as fixed by the Court. The petitioner is not known to have done anything worth the name thereafter. In his affidavit, however, the petitioner has stated that due to introduction of Mandal system, the petitioner’s village fell to the jurisdiction of Nallacheruvu Mandal and that he was informed by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the records were not available. No evidence in support of thereof has been adduced by the petitioner. However, nearly 23 years after the petitioner receiving the amount of compensation under protest, he has filed a representation before the respondents wherein he requested for supply of a copy of the award. After a lull of 1½ years, the petitioner made another representation on 6-7-2009 wherein he has, for the first time, made a specific request for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court. The Tahsildar, Nallacheruvu – respondent No.5, addressed letter dated 21-7-2009 to the Sub-Collector, Penugonda – respondent No.4, wherein it was informed that on 27-1-1984, the awardees, including the petitioner, have received the compensation under protest; that the award proceedings relate to the year 1984 and that the petitioner has represented for payment of higher compensation by referring the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") after a lapse of 25 years. After obtaining the opinion of the higher officials, respondent No.5 has issued proceedings L.Dis.No.244/2009(A), dated 6-2-2010 whereby he has informed the petitioner that his request for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act cannot be considered after 25 years of passing of the award. It is this communication that is assailed in the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the legal obligation lying on the respondents to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court, is not discharged and that on account of laxity on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is deprived of appropriate compensation. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this is a fit case where the petitioner’s request for reference deserves to be accepted. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person who has not accepted the award is required to make an application in writing within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award under Section 12(2) of the Act, by stating the grounds on which the objections to the award are taken, if the same is made in the presence of the land owner, and in other cases within two months from the date of service of notice of the award. A perusal of the statement made by the petitioner does not show that a specific request is made for reference of the dispute. The petitioner has merely indicated that he was receiving the compensation under protest which will be subject to the decision of the Court. In my opinion, this statement of the petitioner cannot be considered as a request within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act. Even assuming that the said statement constitutes a request, the petitioner failed to act diligently. As noted above, he slept over the matter from the year 1984 till the year 2007, when for the first time he approached the respondents with a request to supply a copy of the award. Even thereafter, the petitioner took nearly two years for making another representation wherein for the first time a specific request for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court was made. Even after rejection of the request on 6-2-2010, the petitioner has waited for nearly two years before filing the present Writ Petition. As the famous adage goes, ‘delay defeats the rights’, the law is well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and such discretion will not be exercised in favour of a person who slept over his rights. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai[1] the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that as a general rule, if there is unreasonable delay, the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. The Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as to what would be reasonable time in the absence of stipulation of limitation, observed that 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be measured. It further held that 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. I n M/s. Trilokchand and Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi[2], Sikri.,J, speaking for the majority held that if a claim is barred under the Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional circumstances, prima facie, it is a stale claim, and need not be entertained by the Supreme Court even under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court iterated its view in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai (1-supra) that even if the action is brought within the period of limitation fixed for a civil action, still the Court can refuse to entertain the case on the ground of laches depending upon the facts of the case. In my opinion, the Writ Petition suffers from uncondonable laches. Even if the petitioner is an agriculturist and an illiterate, that does not absolve him of his obligation to be diligent in pursuing his cause. The indolence of the petitioner in availing his remedies disentitles him for any relief from this Court after more than 2 ½ decades of passing of the award. This is thus a clear case where the doctrine of laches applies for non-suiting the petitioner. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.37438/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-11-2011 AM [1] AIR 1964 S.C. 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110