IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13327 of 2003 Between: 1 Farook Mohiuddin, S/o Ameer Mohiuddin R/o. Chota Talab Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2 Thanveer Mohiuddin S/o.Ameer Mohiuddin R/o. Chota Talab Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 3 Kaleel Mohiuddin S/o. ameer Mohiuddin R/o. Chota Talab Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 4 Karunnisa Begum W/o. Ameer Mohiuddin R/o. Chota Talab Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 5 Taynath Mohiuddin S/o.Hidayath Mohiuddin R/o. Chota Talab Locality, Adilabad, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Land Acquisition Officer cum the Revenue Divisional Officer Adilabad, Adilabad District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to refer application dated 20-02-1998 under Section 18 read with Section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to the competent Civil Court for redetermination of the compensation. The lands of the petitioners were acquired as the same were submerged in the Sathnala Project. Award was passed on 25-04-1979. Certain owners of the other lands, which were also acquired under the same notiﬁcation, raised a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation, which was decided in O.P.No.584 of 1985 and batch on 29-08-1986 by the Civil Court. By the said judgment, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,500/- per acre. The petitioners ﬁled an application under Section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation, in terms of the decree of the Civil Court in O.P.No.584 of 1985, which was disposed of by the respondent, redetermining the compensation, by his order dated 02-02- 1998. The petitioners sent an application on 20-02-1998 to the respondent with a request to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the redetermination of the compensation was not in accordance with the Civil Court’s decree dated 29-08-1986. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioners made a further representation on 11-12-2002, with a similar request. On the ground that no action was taken on the said representations, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioners received the compensation as redetermined under Section 28-A of the Act, without any protest, on 17-02-1998 and that no application was ﬁled either on 20-02-1998 or on 11-12-2002 as claimed by the petitioners. No reply-aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the above mentioned averments. Irrespective of whether an application under Section 18 of the Act was made or not, the fact remains that the petitioners have not made a request for reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act for proper determination of the market value. Even assuming that the petitioners made a request under Section 18 of the Act and no order has been passed thereon by the respondent, the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing their relief. The petitioners did not approach this Court for nearly six years for seeking a reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, this Court would not extend such a discretion in favour of a person who slept over his rights for unduly long period. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th August, 2008 vrn