HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1052 OF 2009. DATED 22nd February, 2011. BETWEEN Kothwal @ Mangali Satyanarayana …Petitioner and The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1052 OF 2009. ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.5.02 guntas in Sy.No. 524 of Siddipet village and Mandal, Medak District. It is his grievance that the respondent authorities took possession of his land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in the aforementioned survey number for the purpose of road widening, without giving him prior notice and without initiating action as contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. It is stated that the petitioner also got issued legal notice to the respondents on 4.5.2005 for payment of compensation and other statutory benefits. Despite the same, he was not paid any amount towards compensation till the date. Hence, the Writ Petition. The second respondent filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that they have not acquired any land, much less the alleged land of the petitioner for widening of the road from Sircilla to Siddipet. It is stated that the road leading from Sircilla to Siddipet is a major district road and that in the year 2002 they had taken up strengthening and widening of the road i.e. conversion of single lane to double lane in the district limits of Medak and completed the said work within the boundaries of the said road. It is stated that they have not encroached the petitioner’s land and have also not initiated any action for acquisition of the land for the purpose of the road widening. It is further stated that before 1978, the Zilla Parishad roads were formed after obtaining the lands with the consent of the villagers and the pattadars thereof, and later the maintenance of the said road was undertaken by the (R&B) Department, second respondent. It is stated that the said road was laid by the Zilla Parishad prior to 1978 by acquiring land to an extent of 26 guntas situate in Sy.No. 524 of Siddipet village. It is further stated that the petitioner had not approached the authorities concerned for payment of compensation for the land alleged to have been taken by the Zilla Parishad. It is stated that the petitioner approached this Court after long lapse of 30 years for payment of compensation, and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perusing the case file, it is clear that the respondents have not acquired the land of the petitioner for widening of the road, as alleged by him, from Sircilla to Siddipet, which is a major district road. In view of their categorical stand in the counter affidavit, as stated supra, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, it is to be seen, Prior to 1978, Zilla Parishad laid the road by acquiring the land of the villagers and pattadars with their consent and after 1978, the maintenance of the said road was undertaken by the second respondent. Perhaps, at the time of formation of road prior to 1978, the concerned Zilla Parishad might have taken the land of the petitioner to some extent. But, after lapse thirty years, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking payment of compensation and other statutory benefits. The petitioner has, however, utterly failed to explain properly and satisfactorily the undue delay of thirty years which had occurred between the alleged taking possession of his land and the date of filing of the Writ Petition in this Court. He is, therefore disentitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary and its exercise must be judicious and reasonable and admits of no controversy. Persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless they fully satisfy the Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justify the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief. Therefore, grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person including the State without considering his blameworthy, conduct, such as laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his/its legal right by the State. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd February, 2009. Msnro