THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21425 of 1999 27.2.2008 Between: Thote Ramachander Rao, S/o.Sham Rao … Petitioner and The District Collector, Adilabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21425 of 1999 ORDER: Petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.2.15 gts out of Acs.8.30 gts in survey No.22/A situated at Pippervada village of Jaind Mandal in Adilabad District, was acquired for providing house sites, pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity). The same was assailed in W.P.No.3141 of 1996, which was disposed of directing second respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Subsequently enquiry was conducted in which petitioner gave application seeking compensation at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. An award was passed fixing market value at Rs.39,900/-. Petitioner again filed W.P. No.21858 of 1996 challenging acquisition proceedings. This Court declined to go into merits of the writ petition but gave liberty to petitioner to file application, within three weeks from the date of order i.e., on 23.10.1998, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act to Civil Court. Petitioner filed application before second respondent on 23.11.1998, which has been rejected by impugned memo dated 16.8.1999 informing petitioner that his application is beyond period of three weeks. This is assailed in the instant writ petition. Learned Counsel for petitioner does not seriously dispute that the time granted by petitioner to make application under Section 18 of the Act expired on 14.11.1998 but petitioner made application on 23.11.1998. Therefore exception cannot be taken to impugned memo. Second respondent strictly obeyed orders of this Court. In this writ petition, in which rejection memo is challenged, it is not proper for this Court to extend time or condone lapse on the part of petitioner. When this Court gave liberty to petitioner to make application within three weeks, the same has to be complied with strictly. Consequences of non-compliance must necessarily non-suit petitioner to seek any discretionary relief from this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ February 27, 2008 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS