IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1952 of 2005 Between: C. Pedda Subbareddy & others. … Petitioners AND The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Somasilla Project, Unit IV, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Buchaiah Goud Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1952 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not referring the case of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the competent Civil Court, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to refer their application to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Certain lands of the petitioners along with structures included in Reach No.IV of Kotapadu Village, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, were acquired in connection with construction of Somasilla project in the year 1986. Award No.24/86-87 dated 15.09.1986 was passed in respect of the said properties. The petitioners claim that they made their application on 20.10.1986 to the respondent for reference of the dispute relating to market value under Section 18 of the Act to the competent Civil Court. Almost 12 years thereafter, the petitioners filed WP.No.18600 of 1998 in this Court, which was disposed of on 13.07.1998 following an earlier order passed by this Court in WP.No.16852 of 1998, wherein it was directed that the respondents shall consider and process the application within four weeks and refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act, if the application was filed within the period of limitation. Complaining that the said order was not implemented, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that in pursuance of the award passed on 15.09.1986, the petitioners received the compensation and made their application for reference under Section 18 of the Act and that the said application was rejected by making necessary entries in the register in the year 1990. The respondent denied the plea of the petitioners that their cases were earlier referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 on 06.10.1988 and further stated that since the award passed in case of the petitioners and the application made by them could not be traced, taking advantage of the absence of the records, the petitioners got the documents fabricated to show that a reference was made. The respondent also raised the plea that the petitioners approached this Court after a lapse of seventeen years disentitling them to any relief. At the hearing, Sri G. Buchaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1988 itself, the respondent referred the petitioners’ application to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajampet and that for lack of diligence on his part the reference was not taken on file by the Court. He further submitted that the respondent ought to have referred the petitioners’ application in pursuance of order dated 13.07.1998 passed by this Court in WP.No.18600 of 1998. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the contention relating to the earlier reference, I have perused letter dated 06.10.1988 addressed by the respondent to the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, a copy of which is filed by the petitioners. In the subject of the letter, Reach No.III of Kotapadu Village is mentioned. Admittedly, the lands and structures of the petitioners are acquired in Reach No.IV. Therefore, the said letter does not support the case of the petitioners. At any rate, the alleged reference by the respondent was prior to the petitioners filing WP.No.18600 of 1998. If at all, the petitioners ought to have raised this plea in the said writ petition and invited a finding therein. As no such finding has been given by this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to raise the said issue in the present writ petition, as such, a plea is barred by the principle of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the analogy of which very much applies to the writ proceedings. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. As regards the claim of the petitioners for reference, the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader shows that the Master Register of land acquisition for Somasilla project maintained by the respondent shows that the application of the petitioners along with other applications were rejected with endorsement dated 09.09.1989 of the respondent with Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore, counter signing the same on 09.11.1990. Though there is no evidence to show that any communication was made to the petitioners of the said rejection, the petitioners have kept quiet after the disposal of WP.No.18600 of 1998 on 13.07.1998. After seven long years, they filed this writ petition. The writ petition therefore suffers from unexplained delay and uncondonable laches. Irrespective of the merits of the case, the claim of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Act deserves to be rejected only on this ground, because the petitioners are not diligent in asserting their right and this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not entertain stale claims and show indulgence in favour of persons, who are indolent and lethargic. (see Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[1], B.V. Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki Babu[2], Printers (Mysore) Limited vs. M.A. Raseed[3] and Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs. K.Thangappan[4]). Another reason for my disinclination to interfere in the matter is that properties were acquired more than two decades back and the structures for which compensation is claimed got submerged. The respondents have pleaded that some of the relevant records have been misplaced. Thus long passage of time rendered it difficult, nay, impossible, for adjudication of the petitioners’ claims for enhancement of value of structures. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2616 of 2005 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.07.2008 ES [1] (1975) 4 SCC 714 [2] (1998) 6 SCC 720 [3] (2004) 4 SCC 460 [4] (2006) 4 SCC 322