IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.554 of 2008 Between: Papineni Chakrapani ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh (Land Acquisition) Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.554 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to invalidate the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby an extent of Ac.5.50 cents of land comprising in Sy.No.148/2 and 159 of Jalluru village of Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District is proposed to be acquired. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner filed his objections. On the basis of the report submitted by respondent No.3 on 07.10.2006, respondent No.2 rejected the objections of the petitioner, vide his proceedings No.Ref.G2/3191/2006, dated 13.02.2007. Questioning these proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition almost one year after the impugned order was passed. When the writ petition came up for hearing on earlier occasion, the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition took time to ascertain the present stage of the proceedings. To day, at the time of hearing, she reported that award enquiry was completed and award was passed on 06.10.2007. She also submitted that possession was taken on 31.12.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, asserted that physical possession is still with the petitioner. The petitioner has not given any explanation for the delay of about one year in questioning the order of respondent No.1. He allowed award enquiry to be held and award passed before filing this writ petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner, who is not diligent in approaching this Court at an appropriate time, is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed, on this ground. However, dismissal of this writ petition does not preclude the petitioner from seeking determination of market value of the acquired of the land by making an appropriate application under Sec.18 of the Act before the appropriate authority. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.627 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 05.02.2008 Dsr