IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30988 of 2011 Between: Lakkam Rajamallu (died) & others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Karimnagar District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Ms. S. Nanda Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30988 of 2011 ORDER:- A vintage dispute is brought before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition by the petitioners, who appeared to have slept over their rights for years on end. The petitioners pleaded that they are the owners of certain lands, which were notiﬁed for acquisition for formation of CAD road from Chilwakodur Village to Stambampalli via Lothunorr, Abbapur, Datnoor Villages in the year 1991, that an award was passed on 16.08.1991, that on coming to know about the passing of the award, they have ﬁled protest petitions on 22.09.1991 and 15.11.1991 with a request to respondent No.2 to refer the dispute relating to quantum of compensation to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and that they relied upon the acknowledgement of those applications in support of their plea that such request was made. The petitioners further pleaded that the Sub- Collector, Jagityal, has made an endorsement “reference u/s 18 may be made” on 28.09.1991 and that since their representations have not yielded result, they have approached the District Collector, who has issued proceedings on 20.07.1999 to Sub-Collector to send a detailed report along with the proposals in the check memo. The petitioners have ﬁled the present Writ Petition more than 11 years after the said endorsement of the District Collector with the grievance that their disputes have not been referred under Section 18 of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be thrown out only on the ground of laches without calling upon the respondents to respond to the various pleas raised by the petitioners. The law is well settled that a person cannot be allowed to sleep over his rights for unduly long time and seek his legal remedy at his leisure. Dealing with a similar situation, this Court i n Marisetti Venkata Swamy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh[1], held: “As the famous adage goes, ‘delay defeats the rights’, the law is well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and such discretion will not be exercised in favour of a person who slept over his rights. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai (AIR 1964 S.C. 1006) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that as a general rule, if there is unreasonable delay, the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. T he Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as to what would be reasonable time in the absence of stipulation of limitation, observed that the maximum period ﬁxed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be measured. It further held that the Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable. In M/s. Trilokchand and Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110), Sikri.,J, speaking for the majority held that if a claim is barred under the Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional circumstances, prima facie, it is a stale claim, and need not be entertained by the Supreme Court even under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. T he Supreme Court reiterated its view in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai (1-supra) that even if the action is brought within the period of limitation ﬁxed for a civil action, still the Court can refuse to entertain the case on the ground of laches depending upon the facts of the case.” Even if the petitioners’ plea that their applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act were received and endorsements were made in the years 1991 and 1999, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation whatsoever for the petitioners to remain quiet for more than 11 years even after the District Collector has allegedly made his endorsement on 20.07.1999. On account of passage of time, the claims become stale and more often the respondents will not be in a position to effectively defend those claims. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever from the petitioners for their laid back approach resulting in enormous delay in approaching this Court, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition for adjudication on merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.38425 of 2011 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.12.2011 ES [1] W.P.No.30214 of 2011, dated 15.11.2011