IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 738 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/02/2003 in WP No.4958 of 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A.Ekambara Naicker, S/o Ramayya Basara Street, Palaaneru, Chittor District. ..... APPELLANT 1) The Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-Collector's Office, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2) The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 738 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ) This writ appeal is filed against the orders dated 07.02.2003 in WP.No.4958 of 1999 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed for seeking reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The appellant is one of the owners of the land acquired for the purpose of establishing Industrial Estate by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. An extent of Ac.1-18 cents belonging to the appellant was acquired under the said acquisition. An Award No.1/1988 is passed on 26.08.1988. Notice of award as required under Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued to the land owners on 26.08.1998. The appellant is one among the land owners, who received said notice. According to the appellant, he has sent an application on 22.09.1988 seeking reference of his claim to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act through his counsel Sri J.Venkatakrishna by registered post with acknowledgment due and that said notice was received by the Office of the Sub-Collector on 26.09.1988. The petitioner’s request for reference was not exceeded too. The appellant earlier filed Writ Petition No.4570/1994 in this Court, which was disposed of at the admission stage on 17.03.1994 with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the application in respect of the Award No.1/1988 filed by the petitioner and others for reference under Section 18 of the Act, within six weeks from the date of the order. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said direction, the respondents have not taken any decision for reference. Therefore, he filed the writ petition No.4958 of 1999. 4. The learned Single Judge carefully examined the facts pleaded by the respective parties. With reference to the record, the learned Judge examined the postal receipt and purported acknowledgment of the alleged representation made by the appellant and he found material discrepancies; such as variation and numbering between the postal receipt and the registered letter. After careful examination, the learned Single Judge did not believe the contention of the appellant that he had sent a representation on 29.08.1988 through his Advocate for reference. 5. At the hearing, we have summoned the record and carefully perused the same. The record does not contain the purported objections sent by the appellant or any document showing receipt of such representation from the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has carefully examined the entire record and while exercising the jurisdiction, it is not necessary for us to re-appreciate the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, as the appellant failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record to disturb the findings of the learned Single Judge. 6. One other reason for disinclination to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge is that the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 17.03.1994 whereas the appellant filed the present writ petition on 19.03.1999. Thus, there is a delay of nearly five years by the appellant for approaching this Court. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the respondents have not disposed of his representation and as the appellant was making enquiries to the reference he did not file writ petition earlier. We are unable to accept this explanation because even in the absence of any order having been passed by the respondents, the appellant ought not to have waited for as long as five years, thereby allowing the entire claim of the appellant to become stale. 7. For the abovementioned reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI. ________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY. 12-02-2009. ISL/SUR