IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18147 of 2003 Between: Smt. Boda Hakkubai … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.V. Muni Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7413 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not referring the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the competent civil court for enhancement of compensation in respect of Award No.1/98-99 so far it concerns the lands of the petitioners, as illegal. The award in this case was passed on 19.05.1998. Compensation was received by the petitioners allegedly under protest. The petitioners claim that they sent notice dated 15.06.1998 under certiﬁcate of posting to the respondents requesting for reference of dispute to the civil Court. Since there was no response from the respondents, they got a lawyer’s notice dated 03.09.1998 sent to the respondents under acknowledgement. On receipt of the said notice, respondent No.1 vide his letter 26.09.1998 directed respondent No.2 to take necessary action as per the rules in force. Since respondent No.2 has not taken any action on this endorsement, after waiting for about six years, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, he inter alia denied receipt of notices said to have been sent by the petitioners under certiﬁcate of posting on 15.06.1998. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contented that since the petitioners have sent their notices on 15.06.1998 under certiﬁcate of posting, the respondents are not justiﬁed in denying the receipt of the said notices. He also referred to legal notice dated 03.09.1998, which was admittedly received by all the respondents under which a reference was made to the purported notice dated 15.06.1998. I have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel. As regards the right of the petitioners to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act, if award was not passed in their presence, the petitioners are entitled to make a request for reference within two months from the date of receipt of notices under Section 12(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioners claimed that except in the case of one person other petitioners did not receive notices. However, the fact remains that even according to the petitioners they sent notices under certiﬁcate of posting on 15.06.1998. This fact clearly establishes that they had knowledge of passing of award and its contents. Assuming that on 15.06.1998 the petitioners have acquired the knowledge of passing of the award, they ought to have ﬁled their applications on or before 15.08.1998. The petitioners failed to ﬁle any proof of service of the notices said to have been sent by them on 15.06.1998. Therefore, their claim that they have served notices on that day cannot be accepted. Admittedly, legal notice dated 03.09.1998 was received by the respondents by which time the limitation period for making a request was expired. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act. There is one other reason for the disinclination of this Court to grant relief to the petitioners, namely, that though respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to take necessary action as far back as 26.09.1998 and no action was taken by respondent No.2, they ﬁled the present writ petition after a lapse of almost six years. The petitioners cannot sleep over their rights, if any, and approach this Court at their leisure. By any standard, six years time is too long for any person to maintain a writ petition in order to agitate over his purported rights. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9662 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.08.2008 ES