IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.12860 of 2011 Between: Rudra Hanmandlu and another. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by Tahsildar-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy. Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to implement order, dated 19-7-2001, in Writ Petition No.20246 of 1993. The lands of the petitioners were acquired and an award was passed on 19-9-1992. The petitioners made an application on 16-8-1993 for reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), which was rejected by the respondent on 29-9-1993, as time barred. The petitioners thereupon filed Writ Petition No.20246 of 1993, which was allowed by this court by order, dated 19-7-2001, following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani Vs. Dasari Ramulu and others - 2000 (2) ALT 83 - directing the respondent to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Claiming that the said order has not been implemented, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition, nine years after disposal of the same. In my opinion, the petitioners have failed to show the diligence required in pursuing their cause. This court has stipulated a period of three months for reference of the dispute. Except pleading that they have made representations to the respondent for implementation of the said order of this court, the petitioners failed to give any details thereof and file any of the copies of the purported representations. They have allowed nine years to pass-by before approaching this court by way of the present Writ Petition for implementation of the earlier order. They ought to have shown the required alacrity to ensure that the order of this court is implemented at the earliest point of time. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioners for their indolence. The law is well settled that a person, who is not diligent in pursuing his cause, is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. For the above mentioned reasons, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners at this belated stage. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.15627 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:09-11-2011 MNR