This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the claim of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') to the extent of his land acquired under Award No.13 of 1984 dated 30.3.1984, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

3. An extent of Ac.2.56 cents in Sy.No.3 of Boravelli Village, Manopad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District belonging to the petitioner was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. Award No.13/1984 dated 30.3.1984 was passed fixing the market value at Rs.2,500/- per acre. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 4,002/- on 17.5.1984 towards first instalment under protest. On the same day, he applied for reference of the dispute to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act regarding enhancement of market value. This was followed up by another request dated 20.6.1984. As no action was taken for more than 20 years, the petitioner caused legal notice dated 17.6.2005 issued to the respondents. Respondent No.1 called for report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal and after considering report dated 16.9.2005 submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, he rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the claim suffers from laches.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, it is averred that award was passed on 30.3.1984 and the petitioner was paid the compensation amount on 17.5.1984 and that on the same day the petitioner filed a protest petition and sought for reference of the dispute to civil Court. He also admitted that the petitioner gave a legal notice on 17.6.2005. It is, however, stated that respondent No.1, after examining the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, observed that the petitioner's claim for reference cannot be considered after a lapse of 21 years.

5. It is further averred that this Court dismissed WP No.5106 of 1998 on 10.12.1998 filed by the petitioner therein on the ground of laches and the said judgment was confirmed by order dated 29.12.1998 in W A No.2225 of 1998. The answering respondent also relied on order dated 7.12.1998 in WP No.29480 of 1998, which was passed following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1999 (10) JT 336, wherein it was held that delay defeats equity and where no period of limitation is prescribed, the period of three years prescribed as limitation for civil suit is the guiding factor.

6. The petitioner filed a copy of report dated 16.9.2005 submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal to respondent: No.1, in pursuance of the latter's direction to submit such a report vide his letter dated 7.7.2005. The respondents have not denied the authenticity of the said report. In the said report, Revenue Divisional Officer stated that the award was passed on 30.3.1984, that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the nephew of the petitioner on 15.4.1984, that the petitioner received the first instalment of Rs 4,002/- under protest on 17.5.1984 and that on the same day i.e., on 17.5.1984 he filed a protest petition, wherein he stated that the value of the land was not less than Rs.25,000/- per acre and requested for reference of his claim to civil Court. He marked the endorsement of the officer as ‘A7' in his report. It is further stated in the report that by another letter dated 20.6.1984, the petitioner again requested for reference of his claim to civil Court and that the office Superintendent endorsed as "The awardee is expected to file objection petition for the enhancement within a period of six weeks from the date of pronouncement of award A7. Put up award proceedings." The Revenue Divisional Officer in his report further stated that in paragraph Nos.26 and 27 of page 14 of note file it is mentioned as "Kindly peruse the application submit