THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16608 of 2007 ORDER: Although the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this order. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation amount for the acquired land admeasuring Acs.4.39 cents covered by R.S.No.106/2003 situated at Sagipadu Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.4.39 cents covered by R.S.No.106/2003 having purchased the same by registered sale deed, dated 19.05.1967 from its earlier owner, by name, K.Kanthamma, Wife of Suraiah. It is stated that the said land was notified under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the compensation of Rs.15,145.15 ps. was fixed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the compensation is not paid to him without any valid reason, as such, he seeks to issue directions to the respondents for payment of compensation to him. Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari District, has filed a detailed counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the land in question was proposed for acquisition for providing house-sites to Harijans and other weaker sections of Sagipadu Village, Hamlet of Tadikalapudi Village and the draft notification was issued on 27.07.1982 and after conducting necessary enquiry, award was passed on 11.01.1984 awarding compensation of Rs.15,145.50 ps to the petitioner. It is further stated that when the compensation amount was sent to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Eluru, the same was returned with an endorsement that the amount could not be kept in deposit without mentioning O.P. Number and thereafter, the demand drafts for the said compensation amount were sent to the Tahsildar, Kamavarapukota, for further action. It is further stated that the Office of the Tahsildar was put on fire by the radicals on 10.04.1992 and the entire records therein were burnt, as such, there is no record available in the Office of the Tahsildar in regard to disbursement of compensation. It is also stated that though a letter was addressed to the State Bank of India to find out whether the demand drafts were encashed or not, the Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Eluru, vide letter, dated 19.08.2010 informed that they would maintain records with regard to Demand Drafts only for a period of eight (8) years, as such, they expressed their inability to provide information in regard to encashment of the said demand drafts. When the matter came up for hearing on the last occasions, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents to verify from the Treasury records whether the alleged demand drafts were encashed or not. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the records relating to the said demand drafts are not available in the Treasury Office also, as such, it is not possible to verify with regard to the encashment of the Demand Drafts at this point of time. Though it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the civil Court sent demand drafts to the Tahsildar for taking further action, there is no information available whether the petitioner has received the compensation amount or not, as all the records in the Office of the Tahsildar were burnt and the records from the bank are also not available. It is to be noticed that the award was passed as early as on 11.01.1984 and this Writ Petition is filed on 02.08.2007. There is absolutely no reason at all to explain the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner. In view of abnormal delay and latches and in the absence of any record for the relevant period as regards encashment of demand drafts, no direction can be issued to the respondents at this point of time for payment of compensation to the petitioner, as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni