1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1043 OF 1994. 1. Bhagirathibai W/o Vithalrao Jadhav, Age 60 years, Occ. Household, R/o Whati, Tq. Renapur, Dist, Latur, At present at village Chincholi, Ta. Barshi, Dist.Solapur. 2. Kerabai W/o Pandurang Vyavahare, AGe 30 years, Occ.Household, R/o Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. 3. Shriram S/o Vithalrao Jadhav, AGe 28 years, Occ.Labour, R/o as above. 4. Rajaram S/o Vithalrao Jadhav, Age 26 years, Occ.Labour, R/o Chincholi, Tq.Barshi, Dist. Solapur. 5. Parvatibai w/o Ajinath Choudhari,Age 24 years, Occ. Household, R/o Deogaon, Tq. Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Latur. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Projects, 2 Osmanabad. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Projects Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.N.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 10.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioners claim enhanced compensation at the rate which was awarded by the Reference Court in a Reference preferred by the other persons in respect of the acquisition of the land of the same award. The said Reference was decided on 26.4.1982. 2. The present petition has been filed in the year 1994. The present petitioner or his predecessor has not preferred Reference U/s 18 of 3 the Land Acquisition Act and has accepted the award which was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The present petitioners also have not resorted to the rights U/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr.Patil, learned counsel relies on Article 31-A of the Constitution of India and says that the petitioners ought to have been paid the market price. The market price has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer which has been accepted by the petitioners. The law would help the diligent and not the dormant. It is trite law that what can not be allowed to be done directly can not be allowed to be done indirectly also. So after a lapse of 12 years, the petitioners would not be entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Further Article 31-A would not be applicable because proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, lays down providing of compensation dehors the Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Act provides for the remedies if the person is not satisfied with the amount awarded under the Award. In such circumstances Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, is 4 wholly inapplicable in the present case. 3. In light of the above, the Writ Petition being sans merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp104394