HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24060 of 2003 Date: 08.12.2011 Between: J.Subhan Reddy … Petitioner And The District Collector, R.R. District and 3 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24060 of 2003 O R D E R : By notification dated 18.12.1975 published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Acs.4.00 of land situated in Sy.Nos.299, 543, 395/B, 350/A and 380 of Bandi Yelkacherla Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, R.R. District was acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections. Out of the said land, the petitioner herein claims title to Ac.1.00 of land situated in Sy.No.543. Admittedly, the possession of the land acquired was taken on 31.12.1975 and an award was passed on 27.02.1976 fixing the compensation. The present writ petition is filed alleging that no compensation is awarded so far as the land belonging to the petitioner situated in Sy.No.543 and thus seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that though the petitioner made a detailed representation on 16.11.2000 requesting the respondents herein to take immediate steps for payment of compensation, there is no response. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that in the award dated 30.03.1976, the market value was fixed at Rs.1,500/- per acre and the compensation amount was paid to the petitioner’s father J.Bugga Reddy. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As noticed above, even according to the petitioner, the possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1975 and he is aware of the fact that an award was passed in the year 1976. However, this writ petition came to be filed only in the year 2003 after a lapse of about 25 years. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the inordinate delay. In the absence of any justification for the undue delay, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of latches and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is also relevant to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that subsequently, in the year 1987 another extent of Ac.1.00 situated in survey No.543 of Bandiyelukacherla village was acquired vide notification dated 18.02.1995 and the petitioner had received the compensation on 13.03.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking reference to the civil Court for redetermination of the market value. The reference was numbered as O.P.No.38 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. In the light of the above said subsequent events, I find force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the present writ petition complaining about the alleged non-payment of the land acquired in the year 1975 is not bonafide. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 08.12.2011 KLP/Ivd