THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24600 of 2005 Dated:11.02.2011 Between: Afzalunnisa Begum. ...Petitioner And Special Officer (General), Osmania University, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24600 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in occupying her lands admeasuring Acs.68.16 guntas in survey Nos.169, 172/1, 186, 187, 202/3 and 202/4 of Lalaguda Village, Secunderabad Mandal by Osmania University without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is illegal and bad, and for consequential direction to respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the petitioner is that her grandfather Nawab Luthfuddowla Bahadur was the owner of the land as evidenced by the Khasra Pahani for 1954-1955. The first respondent allegedly encroached upon the land. The petitioner made representations in writing as well as orally to the respondents. The first respondent addressed a communication bearing No.2/EC/2001, dated 01.01.2001, requesting the petitioner to meet the Special Officer (General), Osmania University, with all relevant records pertaining to the lands. She alleges that in spite of production of records, no action was taken compelling the petitioner to issue legal notice dated 29.08.2005, in vain. Therefore, the instant writ petition is filed. The petition is silent as to when the land was occupied by the Osmania University. Except a photo stat copy of the Khasra pahani, no evidence of title or possession is placed before this Court even prima facie to countenance the submission that the petitioner is the owner of the land which is admittedly in occupation of the Osmania University. In this background, unless and until the petitioner seeks a declaration in the civil Court she cannot have any locus to file the writ petition. Further, it is well settled that the long delay and laches on the part of the citizen in claiming compensation for immovable property leads to presumption that there was no such acquisition and/or that the right, if any, stood forfeited. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.02.2011 vs