IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16414 of 2005 Between: Nallam Reddy Naidu … Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Hari Haran Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran for Sri S. Ravi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16414 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing notification for withdrawal of the land to an extent of Ac.2.70 cents in Sy.No.1986 of Suryaraopet, Kakinada, in terms of undertaking dated 19.11.1993 given to the Supreme Court in SLP.No.15598 of 1988 and batch, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the undertaking given to the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue notification for withdrawal of the abovementioned land. Heard Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran learned counsel representing respondent No.4. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the abovementioned land having purchased the same from Vuta Adilakshmi, wife of Harisubrahmanyam vide registered sale deed No.9574/1980 dated 12.12.1980, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 issued notification dated 20.11.1982 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) acquiring large extents of land for the purpose of establishment of respondent No.4 company and that the land of the petitioner is also included in the said notification. It is further averred that many land owners approached this Court questioning the validity of the said notification, that the said cases were dismissed by this Court and SLP.Nos.15598 of 1988 and batch were filed against the said judgment of this Court, which were disposed of on 19.11.1993 by the Supreme Court based on the undertaking given by respondent Nos.1 and 4 that they will release the lands to the South of the railway line from acquisition. The petitioner further stated that in view of the undertaking given before the Supreme Court, the lands on the South side of the railway track were released from the acquisition by the respondents by retaining the lands situated on the Northern side of the railway track for the benefit of respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while doing so, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not released the abovementioned land, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The petitioner pleaded that the said action of the respondents is contrary to the undertaking given by them and the order passed by the Supreme Court based on the said undertaking. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is neither the rightful owner of the property nor he questioned the land acquisition proceedings and that the petitioner is not a party in the cases before the Supreme Court and hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of the said order. It is also stated that at no point of time, the petitioner had ever objected to the acquisition of the land nor made any representation or claim regarding the property in question. He stated that in respect of this land Kumari G.Jhansi Lakshmi and Sri G. Raghunath filed WP.No.33847 of 1997 in this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of their representation and that the said representation was disposed of by an endorsement stating that on the requisition given by respondent No.4, the said land was acquired under Award No.7 of 1989 dated 30.11.1989 and possession was delivered to respondent No.4 Company on 19.03.1991, that since there was ownership dispute, respondent No.3 referred the dispute to the civil Court under Section 31 (2) of the Act and deposited the compensation amount of Rs.1,69,672=20 ps in O.P.No.80 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge Court, Kakinada and that ultimately the said O.P. was dismissed on 20.01.1996. It was further mentioned in the endorsement that in view of the said facts the claim of the said two persons was rejected. On behalf of respondent No.4, a counter affidavit was filed by its Secretary, wherein it is mentioned that the claim of the petitioner that he is the exclusive owner of the said property was denied. The petitioner’s plea that he has got the land on the Southern side of the railway track is also denied. At the hearing, Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the following contentions: 1) The petitioner’s name has not been shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and hence, the land acquisition proceedings have got vitiated. 2) The award was not passed within two years from the date of publication of the notification and hence, the entire land acquisition proceedings have got lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, and 3) The inaction of the respondents in releasing the land in question is contrary to the order passed by the Supreme Court. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be thrown out for more reasons than one. The petitioner claimed that he is the exclusive owner of the property. Except pleading in his affidavit that he purchased the said property under the registered sale deed on 12.12.1980, he has neither filed the copy of the said sale deed nor any other document of title to show that he is the lawful owner of the property. In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, they have denied the petitioner’s claim of ownership. No reply affidavit is filed and even after filing of the counter affidavits, the petitioner has not made any effort to produce any material whatsoever to substantiate his claim that he is the owner of the property. Unless this Court is satisfied about the subsisting interest of the petitioner in the property, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke its jurisdiction, which is purely discretionary in nature. Admittedly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 20.10.1985 in the newspapers and award was passed on 20.11.1989. Till the petitioner filed the present writ petition, he has not agitated before any forum for his rights over the said property. He neither participated in the Section 5A enquiry or in the award enquiry nor he had questioned the acquisition proceedings at any point of time. Admittedly, he was not a party to the batch of cases filed by some of the land owners in this Court and in the SLPs filed before the Supreme Court. Even in the present writ petition he has not sought for invalidation of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner had any interest in the property, he had acquiesced in questioning the acquisition proceedings. If the petitioner is aggrieved by his name not being shown in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the only remedy available to him was to question the notification, which he did not. It is therefore not permissible for the petitioner to raise the said contention at this length of time more so, in the absence of any prayer for invalidation of the acquisition proceedings. The second contention of the learned counsel that the award was not passed within the time stipulated under Section 11- A of the Act is also liable to be rejected on the same reasoning as given while dealing with contention No.1. Yet another reason to reject this contention is that the petitioner has not raised any plea based on this contention. This contention is accordingly rejected. As regards the third contention, admittedly the petitioner has not questioned the acquisition proceedings and he was not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court, which is based on the agreement reached between the parties cannot be termed as a judgment in rem. At any rate, the said order was passed on 19.11.1993 and the petitioner slept over the issue for 12 years and filed the present writ petition on the basis of the said order. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of an order passed in a case to which he is not a party, that too after a lapse of 12 years. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and the law is well settled that a writ petition which suffers from laches is liable to be dismissed irrespective of its merits. Moreover, by the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition, he allowed the rights of third party, namely, respondent No.1 to creep in and such settled rights cannot be allowed to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. (see Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[1], B.V. Sivaiah vs. K. Addankt Babu[2], Printers (Mysore) Limited vs. M.A. Raseed[3] and Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs. K. Thangappan[4]) For all the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.20858 of 2005 and WVMP.No.2350 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.07.2008 ES [1] (1975) 4 SCC 714 [2] (1998) 6 SCC 720 [3] (2004) 4 SCC 460 [4] (2006) 4 SCC 322