IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13329 of 2003 Between: Nusrath Mohiuddin, S/o. Hasan Mohiuddin Khan, R/o. Mandorla Village, Mandal Jainath, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer Cum the Revenue Divisonal Offic Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent : AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to refer application dated 31-10-1997 under Section 18 read with Section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to the competent Civil Court for redetermination of the compensation. The lands of the petitioner were acquired as the same were submerged in the Sathnala Project. Award was passed on 25-04-1979. Certain owners of the other lands, which were also acquired under the same notification, raised a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation, which was decided in O.P.No.584 of 1985 and batch on 29-08-1986 by the Civil Court. By the said judgment, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,500/- per acre. The petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act. As the same was not considered, he filed W.P.No.9979 of 1993 in this Court, which was disposed of on 12-10-1993 with the direction to consider the petitioner’s application. Accordingly, the respondent redetermined the compensation, in terms of the decree of the Civil Court, by his order dated 10-09-1997. The petitioner sent an application on 31-10-1997 to the respondent with a request to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the redetermination of the compensation was not in accordance with the Civil Court’s decree dated 29-08-1986. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner made a further representation on 04-02-2003, with a similar request. On the ground that no action was taken on the said representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner received the compensation as redetermined under Section 28-A of the Act, without any protest, on 24-10-1997, and made a request to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act instead of under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. The facts narrated above clearly show that the petitioner having received compensation following redetermination under Section 28-A of the Act, has not made a request for reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act for proper determination of the market value. Though the respondent has not passed any order on his application, the petitioner kept quiet for as long as nearly six years before filing this writ petition. In my considered view, the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing his relief. As already noted, he made a wrong request to the respondent to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act instead of seeking for reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. Moreover, he did not approach this Court for nearly six years for seeking a reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, this Court would not extend such a discretion in favour of a person who slept over his rights for unduly long period. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th August, 2008 vrn