HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27782 of 2011 Date : 15-11-2011 Between: Yanamala Chandraiah and others .. Petitioners And Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Moolapet, Nellore .. Respondent Counsel for petitioners : Sri M. Sasidhar Reddy Counsel for respondent : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings No.Rc.B.1036/89, dated 20-9-1993 of the respondent whereby he has fixed ex-gratia in respect of the lands taken over from the petitioners for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that under the impugned proceedings, appropriate ex-gratia has not been fixed for their lands which were admittedly assigned to them by the Government; that being uneducated and unaware of the procedure, the petitioners came to know about the above mentioned proceedings and that immediately they applied for a certified copy of the proceedings and received the same in February 2004. The petitioners further pleaded that the case bundle was handed over to the counsel who misplaced the same in his office. The case which was obviously filed in the year 2004 was represented with delay of about six years. This Court has condoned the said delay in representation on condition of payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, stated that the petitioners have received the ex-gratia payment in the year 1993 itself without protest. She has filed proceedings in Form No.C in respect of petitioner Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in support of her submission that ex-gratia payment was received by the said petitioners as far back as the year 1993. She further submitted that the evidence relating to petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 8, in this regard, could not be produced due to paucity of time. I n Marisetti Venkata Swamy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh[1], this Court held : “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 (AIR 1964 S.C. 1006) 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. In M/s. Trilokchand and Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110), 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.” It is not even the pleaded case of the petitioners that any time after receipt of ex-gratia payment, they have made any representation in writing for reconsideration. The petitioners having thus allowed the dispute settle down by receiving the amount under the award cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court after lapse of more than 12 years. Such stale claims, if entertained, would cause enormous harm to public interest apart from encouraging the litigants who slept over their rights for years on end. I have no hesitation to hold that the Writ Petition suffers from uncondonable laches apart from the fact that the petitioners have acquiesced in raising any dispute on the ex gratia payment as they have received the amount without any demur. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.34267/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-11-2011 AM [1] W.P.No.30214/2011, dt.15-11-2011