( 1 ) THE nine petitioners filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All of them own small extents of land ranging from Ac. 0. 02 cents to Ac. 0. 58 cents. They are all the residents of Pallempalli village, Veerulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, which is famous for its richness. They want this Court to issue a mandamus declaring the alleged action of the respondents, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector and the Executive Engineer, Road and Buildings, Vijayawada, in not paying the compensation to the petitioners in respect of acquisition of their lands. According to the petitioners, which is not substantiated before this Court, the land was occupied by respondents 2 and 3 for laying the road from Pallempalli village to Veerulapadu of Krishna District. Therefore they say that the entire action is violative of their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1984 - about 16 years ago - the respondents utilised the land to the petitioners for laying down the road. They went on making representations to the authorities requesting for payment of compensation. They also conducted Dharna and stopped the A. P. S. R. T. C. buses which are plying on the road, which was laid on their land. They also made representations to their duly elected representatives. All those efforts were futile. As a last chance they resorted to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) NOTICE before admission was ordered by this Court on 29-12-1998. Now the case is listed before me for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Prabhakara Rao. He submitted that because of their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy the petitioners are not aware of their rights. Therefore they could not approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in time. It is further submitted that any forcible acquisition of land would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

( 4 ) THOUGH the Court has sympathies with the people like the petitioners herein, the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used. Reasons are many, but this Court is inclined to refer to three reasons for the same. Firstly, except saying the facts, which are narrated in toto above no document is forthcoming. Secondly it is well settled that the writ petitions are decided based on the affidavits. Therefore the petitioners seeking an order under Article 226 of the Constitution are obliged to file necessary documents in support of the averments in the affidavit. The Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 also clearly say that necessary documents in support of the averments in the affidavit should be filed, that is to say, every pleading in the affidavit should be supported by a document If the pleading is not based on the personal knowledge of the petitioner, the writ rules also say, that the petitioner shall have to make an averment that such and such averment is being made on being learnt from somebody else. If such averment is not supported by a document, the Court makes an exception and exempts the petitioner from filing any document. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181, the Supreme Court adverting to the question a to whether the point raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition needs to be substantiated by annexing as necessary document to the petitioner, observed a follows : in our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ