IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7102 of 2003 Between: M.A. Nayeem, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Kareem, R/o. Old Colony, D.No. D-58, Near Moinia Masjid, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Adilabad District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Anifabad, Adilabad District. 3 Municipal Commissioner, Kegaznagar, Municipality, Kagznagar, Adilabad District. 4 Chairman, Kegeznagar Muncipal Council, Kagznagar, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dt. 10-4-1995 filed by the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent to pay the compensation or allot the plot in Sy.No. 53 and 54 at Ward No. 2, Kegaznagar Village by declaring action of the respondent is illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents for disposal of the representation dated 10-04-1995 and also for payment of compensation for deprivation of residential plot allotted to his late father. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was allotted a site admeasuring 97.77 square yards pursuant to order dated 17-01-1964 issued in Rc.No.B/3153/62 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad. It is his case that the said piece of land was also re-allotted to an Arabic school; as such he was dispossessed on 31-07-1971. It is stated that some third parties were also allowed to make constructions subsequently on the site in question and in spite of his making representations no action is being taken. It is stated that representations were made for allotting alternative site on 16-08-1992, 09-06-1992 and 10-04-1995. 3. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner’s father was allotted a house site, he was evicted from the said piece of land and the same was re-allotted to an Arabic school and in spite of repeated representations, no action is being taken for allotting alternative site or to pay compensation in lieu thereof. 4. Even according to the petitioner, there is no plot number mentioned in the allotment proceedings. It is not clear from the Commissioner’s report, whether the plot allotted to the petitioner was taken back for re-allotment to any school or not. No material is placed before this court to show that the plot allotted to the father of the petitioner, is re-allotted to the Arabic school as pleaded by the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, his father was dispossessed as early as on 31-07-1971, but no steps have been taken since then and nearly after 21 years, the petitioner started making representations, on 09-06-1992, 16-8-1992 and 10-04-1995. Nearly after waiting for about 8 years after the last representation, the writ petition is filed on 09-04-2003. 5. From a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, except stating that repeated representations are made, there is no valid explanation to explain the inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, dispossession was made as early as on 31-07-1971 and he started making representations only from the year 1992. Further, the writ petition is filed nearly after 8 years after the last representation is made. In absence of any valid explanation for this abnormal delay, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this point of time in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the unexplained abnormal delay and latches on the part of the petitioner, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 1, 2009 Skmr/MRR