IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.11049 of 2002 Between: K.Venkayamma. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.V.Satyanarayana. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition for R.1 to R.3. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notiﬁcation dated 28-4- 1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to acquire the extent of Ac.0.46 cents of land comprised in Survey No.80/3A of Kanuru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, and also to set aside Award No.4 of 1996 dated 23-5-1996. Heard Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 3. The admitted facts are that the abovementioned land was notiﬁed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act on 28-4-1996. Award No.4 of 1996 was passed on 23-5-1996. The petitioner ﬁled this Writ Petition in the year 2002. Though the petitioner raised several contentions touching the validity of the acquisition proceedings, I do not feel inclined to adjudicate on the said contentions for the reason that the petitioner failed to properly explain the inordinate delay of more than six years in ﬁling the present Writ Petition. The averments of the petitioner contained in the aﬃdavit show that she had knowledge of acquisition of the said land in the year 1997 itself when she received summons from the civil Court in a reference made under Section 30 of the Act. Though Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to explain the delay by stating that the petitioner was dispossessed only on 13-2-2002 and that, therefore, immediately the petitioner ﬁled the present Writ Petition, I am not prepared to accept this contention because dispossession of the petitioner cannot be reckoned as the starting point for the purpose of considering the aspect of delay in ﬁling the Writ Petition. The petitioner failed to explain the reason for not questioning the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings at least in the year 1997 when she had knowledge of the same. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and this Court would not extend such jurisdiction in favour of a person who slept over his rights. As the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than six years, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04-11-2008 MNR