HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23507 of 2006 17.01.2008 Between: Amanchi Venkata Subbaiah & others … Petitioners AND The Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town and District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not referring the dispute relating to valuation of structures covered by award No. 10 of 1986 dated 18.09.1986 to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) in pursuance of application dated 03.11.1986 filed by the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. Certain extents of land belonging to the petitioners were acquired under notification dated 23.03.1981 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, possession was taken on 07.08.1986 and award was passed on 18.09.1986. The petitioners claimed that they made applications on 03.11.1986 to the Land Acquisition Officer under acknowledgment seeking reference of the dispute relating to fixation of market value of the structures, under Section 18 of the Act, but the respondents have not so far taken any action on the said application. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, G.N.S.S. Unit-I, Nandyal, Kurnool District holding additional charge of the post of Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit IV, Rajampeta, Kadapa District, it is averred that in respect of award No. 10 of 1986 dated 18.09.1986, compensation amount was paid to the awardee on 26.09.1986, that soon after receipt of compensation, most of the awardees filed applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of the dispute to the civil Court, that the said applications numbering 256 were referred to civil Court as L.A.O.P. Nos. 2317 of 1988 and batch and compensation was enhanced by the said Court. The respondents filed A.S. Nos. 2958 of 2003 and batch before this Court and the said cases were referred to Lok Adalat, which settled the disputes on 14.10.2006. It is further averred that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have not filed any application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of the dispute to the civil Court. The respondents also raised the plea that the writ petition filed after a lapse of 20 years suffers from laches. In the reply affidavit, the petitioners reiterated their contention that they submitted application on 03.11.1986 and obtained acknowledgment and they denied the allegation of laches. Though Constitution of India does not stipulate limitation for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, by way of judicial precedents, the constitutional courts have laid down self-imposed restrictions on entertaining writ petitions filed with un- explained delay (See State of M. P. v. Bhailal Bhai[1], Trilokchand and Motichand v. M.B. Munshi[2] and Rabindra Nath v. Union of India[3]). The main reason behind the Courts insisting that a person should approach the Court within a reasonable time is to see that the parties do not make stale claims and that a litigant should always be diligent in prosecuting his/her case. In the instant case, whether the petitioners have approached the respondents with an application for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act or not is difficult to be decided after a lapse of 20 years. If the petitioners have made such an application, I do not see any reason whatsoever for their sleeping over the issue for two decades. The petitioners have not offered any explanation whatsoever for not approaching this Court earlier more so when, undisputedly, as many as 256 owners of the land got their disputes referred to civil Court and succeeded in getting the market value enhanced. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained after a lapse of 20 years and the writ petition is dismissed as the same suffers from huge and unexplained delay. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29964 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17.01.2008 ksld [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] AIR 1970 SC 470