THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.11477 of 2010 Dated 21st November, 2011 Between: Midde Gurrappa …Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Sreedhar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Ms.A.Harija For Sri M.Subba Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in seeking to pay compensation to respondent No.4 for Acs.1.28 cents of land in Survey No.368/1 of Sunkesual Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation to him. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the above-mentioned property, which was acquired for excavation of SRBC canal vide notiﬁcation, dated 04.05.1992. It is his further case that even though his name is mentioned in the notiﬁcation, respondent No.2 has passed the award in favour of respondent No.4 and that despite his request for paying compensation, respondent No.2 has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.4 and is seeking to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the said respondent. Assailing this action, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. No counter affidavit is filed. However, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that an award was passed as far back as 30.03.1993 and that the entire compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to respondent No.4. She further stated that respondent No.4 has got the dispute relating to quantum of compensation referred to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the said reference proceedings are deposed of. She further stated that against the award in the reference proceedings, her clients ﬁled an appeal before this Court and that the said appeal was dismissed. In my opinion, in the light of the above facts, the writ petition is wholly belated. The petitioner has slept over the issue till the entire proceedings relating to acquisition and payment of compensation have got concluded in favour of respondent No.4. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the award passed as far back as 30.03.1993, the only remedy available to him was to seek reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act within the time stipulated therein. Far from doing that, he has kept quiet for as many as seven years during which time much water has ﬂown under the bridge. Having allowed the rights of respondent No.4 crystallised, the petitioner cannot be permitted to unsettle the settled things at this length of time. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 19.05.2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.14574 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st November, 2011 VGB