APHC010799702018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38722/2018 Between: 1. NAGAM SUBBAREDDY (DIED) LR, SON SRI NAGAM YELLA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS. 2. NAGAM PEDDA SUBBA REDDY (DIED) LR, SON SRI NAGAM YELLA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS 3. PATUR GOVINDAREDDY, S/O GOVIND REDDY AGED 65 YEARS 4. NAGAM YELLA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI NAGAM SUBBAREDDY AGED 55 YEARS 5. M. VEERA REDDY (DIED), HIS LEGAL HEIR MAMIDI REDDAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS 6. NAGAM SUBBA REDDY (DIED) LR, SON SRI NAGAM YELLA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS 7. PATUR SUBBA REDDY, S/O VEERA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS 8. N. LAKSHMI REDDY (DIED) LR, SON SRI NAGAM YELLA REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS 9. PATUR GANGIREDDY (DIED) LR, SON SRI VEERANARAYAN REDDY AGED 45 YEARS ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O CHENDUVOY VILLAGE, ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) 2 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IRRIGATION (CAD) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, GALERU NAGARI SRUJALA SRAVANTHI (GNSS) KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT,UNIT-II KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT S.P. DIVISION NO.4, ATMAKUR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue an order, direction or writ more particular in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not passing award and to pay compensation in respect of the petitioners existing structures like houses, huts, roofed houses, wells, bore wells, mango trees, gardens etc., on our lands in Survey Nos.140, 141, 142/1, 2, 143/2, 144/1, 2, 145, 146/1, 2, 3, 147, 148/1, 2, 3, 4, 149, 150, 151, 152, 152/1, 151/2, 153/2, 155/1 to 11, 156/2, 157/2, 351, 352 and 353 of Chenduvoy Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay compensation in respect of the petitioners existing structures like houses, huts, roofed houses, wells, bore wells, mango trees, gardens etc., on our lands in Survey Nos.140, 141, 142/1, 2, 143/2, 144/1, 2, 145, 146/1, 2, 3, 147, 148/1, 2, 3, 4, 149, 150, 151, 152, 152/1, 151/2, 153/2, 155/1 to 11, 156/2, 157/2, 351, 352 and 353 of Chenduvoy Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District by considering the representation of the petitioners dated 08-10-2018 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass 3 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 2. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue an order, direction or writ more particular in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not passing award and to pay compensation in respect of the petitioners existing structures like houses, huts, roofed houses, wells, bore wells, mango trees, gardens etc., on our lands in Survey Nos.140, 141, 142/1, 2, 143/2, 144/1, 2, 145, 146/1, 2, 3, 147, 148/1, 2, 3, 4, 149, 150, 151, 152, 152/1, 151/2, 153/2, 155/1 to 11, 156/2, 157/2, 351, 352 and 353 of Chenduvoy Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass…” 2. The petitioners are residents of Chenduvoy village, Atloor mandal, Kadapa district and their house structures were acquired by the competent authorities for Somasila Project by way of a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 22.01.1996 dispensing with 5(A) by invoking urgency clause. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners were paid compensation, only for agricultural lands but not for the house structures, bore wells, mango trees, gardens etc., existing in their lands situated in Sy.Nos.140,141,142/1, 142/2, ,143/2, 144/1, 144/2, 145, 146/1, 146/2, 146/3, 147, 148/1, 148/2, 148/3, 148/4, 149, 150, 151, 152, 152/1, 151/2, 153/2, 155/1, 155/2, 155/3, 155/4, 155/5, 155/6, 155/7, 5 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 155/8, 155/9, 155/10, 155/11, 156/2, 157/2, 351, 352 and 353 of Chenduvoy village, Atloor mandal, Kadapa district. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the structures built in their respective lands, the petitioners filed W.P.No.2316 of 1996 wherein, this Court passed the following order on 26.12.1996: “The LAO shall receive the Advocate Commissioners reports, who are appointed by his Court as well as the lower Court, on file and shall fix the compensation for the structures that were not disputed by him. With regard to the disputed structures, he shall give an opportunity to the petitioners herein to put forth their cases to prove the existence of the structures, either by documentary evidence or by oral evidence, in the light of the Advocate Commissioner’s report and award compensation to the structures which are admittedly to be held in existence prior to the 4(1) notification…. XXX As the matter has now gone to the LAO, he shall take expeditious steps to complete the process after giving notices by Registered Post Acknowledgment due to all the petitioners or in person and obtain acknowledgements in proof of service of notices and pas award, at any rate within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall pay compensation within 4 weeks thereafter.” 4. As no action has been initiated by the respondent authorities pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the petitioners were 6 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 constrained to file W.P.No.4878 of 2009, wherein, this Court passed the following order on 03.04.2012: “The grievance of the petitioners is about the adequacy of compensation or non-awarding of compensation for trees and structures. Left to themselves, the petitioners did not object to the acquisition. Apprehending that compensation may not be paid for the trees and structures existing over the lands, they filed Writ Petitions. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take not of the physical features. The Writ Petitions were, ultimately, disposed of directing that the Land Acquisition Officer shall take into account the report of the Advocate Commissioner before passing an award. The award was ultimately passed on 21.01.1999. In case, the petitioners were of the view that the Land Acquisition Officer did not take the report of the Advocate Commissioner into account, it was open to them to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. As a matter of fact, no direction from any Court of law is needed for an effected party to seek reference. The record discloses that the petitioners did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Writ Petition is filed only in the year 2009 i.e., 10 years after the award was passed. There is no possibility at this stage to seek reference also. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 5. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners submitted several representations to the concerned authorities, the latest being 08.10.2018, requesting to pay compensation pursuant to the observations made by this Court in the above referred writ petitions, the 7 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not initiated any action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Somasila project, the lands in the subject survey numbers were inspected on 27.09.1995 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar along with his staff. At the time of inspection, 168 structures were found to be existing. Subsequently, on 22.10.1995, the Special Deputy Collector inspected the lands and found that another 168 structures had been subsequently erected and, therefore, only the original 168 structures were included in the proposals for acquisition. Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22.01.1996, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. It is further stated that challenging the notification dated 22.01.1996, the petitioners filed W.P.No.2316 of 1996; the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the village and submitted a report regarding the structures. Considering the said report, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 26.12.1996, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the Advocate Commissioners’ reports, conduct an enquiry regarding the disputed structures and award compensation for structures proved to have existed prior to the Section 4(1) notification. The petitioners, however, failed to produce evidence to establish the existence of the disputed structures 8 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 prior to the notification. As such, the claims were rejected by proceedings dated 05.07.1997. 7. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioners and other concerned; subsequently, after conducting an enquiry, Award No.21/98-99 was passed on 21.01.1999. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P.No.4878 of 2009, which was dismissed by observing that if the petitioners were aggrieved by non-consideration of the Advocate Commissioner’s report, they should have filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is further contended that the present writ petition was filed after a further lapse of about 20 years from the date of order in W.P.No.2316 of 1996 i.e., 26.12.1996 and after dismissal of W.P.No.4878 of 2009, is highly belated, suffers from limitation. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard Sri. M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 9. Perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners in various survey numbers of Chenduvoy village of Atloor mandal, Kadapa district were notified for acquisition in a notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 22.01.1996. The petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.2316 of 1996) contending that though the said 9 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 lands are covered with trees and structures, lands alone were mentioned in the notification. In the said batch of writ petitions, this Court appointed Advocate Commissioners to visit the lands in question and directed to submit a report; the said writ petition was disposed of on 26.12.1996 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to receive the reports of the Advocate Commissioners appointed by the Court and fix compensation for the structures that were not disputed by him; with regard to the disputed structures, the petitioners were to be given an opportunity to put forth their case to prove the existence of the structures. While disposing the said writ petition, the Court gave liberty to the petitioners to seek reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act if they are not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. After following due procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award No.21/98-99 on 21.01.1999. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not fixing compensation in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2316 of 1996 and batch, the petitioners filed W.P.No.4878 of 2009 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to fix and pay the compensation for the structures and trees etc., as mentioned in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 16.10.1996. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 03.04.2012 by observing that if at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the 10 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 award of the Land Acquisition Officer, it was open to them to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. 11. Admittedly, nothing prevented the petitioners from seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if they were aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact, this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.2316 of 1996, had specifically left it open to the petitioners to seek reference if they were not satisfied with the award. Even thereafter, when the petitioners filed W.P.No.4878 of 2009, this Court again observed that their remedy was to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, the petitioners did not avail the said statutory remedy and have approached this Court belatedly, seeking to reopen the issue after a considerable lapse of time. 12. While dealing with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in “City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors1”, has held as under: “The Court while exercising its jurisdiction Under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; 1 2009) 1 SCC 168 11 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 (c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.” 13. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. (Vide: “Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. v. K. Thangappan and Anr2”) 14. The High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily 2 (2006) 4 SCC 322 12 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. (vide: “State of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal3”) 15. In “Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu4”, it was held that, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of 3 (1986) 4 SCC 566 4 (2014) 4 SCC 108 13 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances, inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant--a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 16. Admittedly, the petitioners, filed W.P.No.4878 of 2009 belatedly, nearly ten years after the award dated 21.01.1999, and thereafter again in the year 2018, the present writ petition is filed seeking same relief. Having not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 1999, the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly in the year 2009 and thereafter in the year 2018, instead of seeking reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. At this stage, it would be inappropriate if the petitioners are directed to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. Such unexplained delay and laches is a relevant consideration while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as held by the judgments referred supra. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merits in the present writ petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 14 VS,J W.P.No.38722 of 2018 17. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 16.09.2026 Gss