Judgment : 1. Acs.14.14 cents of land of the petitioner in Sy.Nos.25/2, 28/1 and 31/1 of Devulapalli Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West-Godavari District was acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project in the year 1979. Award was also passed, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per acre. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) to the civil Court. Reference was made, and the matter was taken up by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, as OP No.44 of 1980. Through its judgment dated 18.2.1982, the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,000/-per acre. 2. Some of the claimants in OP No.44 of 1980, or other CPs, that arose out of the some notification, published under Section 4(1) of the Act, filed appeals before this Court, being AS No.885 of 1983 and batch. It appears, the Government also filed appeals against the decrees passed by the civil Court. Through its judgment dated 29.11.1989, this Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.22,000/-per acre. 3. The petitioner submits that he too is eligible for the benefit of the decree passed by this Court in AS No.885 of 1983 and Batch, and those, in other similar matters. He contends that when the owners of the land, who are similarly situated, are paid the compensation @ Rs.22,000/-per acre, denial of the same to him, on the ground that he did not prefer appeal; would amount to discrimination. He has also made reference to the orders passed by this Court, in WP Nos.4243 of 2001, 19424 of 2001 and 16102 of 2008. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. According to them, the petitioner has already availed the remedy under Section 18 of the Act, and once an application is filed under Section 28-A of the Act, there is no way, that he can get the relief, prayed for in this writ petition. According to them, the petitioner has to blame himself, for not preferring the appeal against the decree, in OP No.44 of 1980. 5. The prayer made by the petitioner, in a way, fits into the one, referable to Section 28A of the Act. According to them, the petitioner has to blame himself, for not preferring the appeal against the decree, in OP No.44 of 1980. 5. The prayer made by the petitioner, in a way, fits into the one, referable to Section 28A of the Act. However, that benefit is available only to the owner of the land, who did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act; and references were made at the instance of the persons, whose lands were also acquired through the same notification. The Act does not permit of extension of relief referable to Section 28-A, in favour of a person, who has availed the remedy under Section 18. It is not as if the petitioner was prevented from pursuing the remedies, which the owners of other lands have pursued. In case he was not satisfied with the decree in OP No.44 of 1980, he ought to have preferred an appeal before this Court. 6. Assuming that he did not realise the impact of decree in OP No.44 of 1980, immediately, he could have taken steps to prefer the appeal, at least, when others preferred appeals, or decrees were passed in their favour, by this Court, by filing an application to condone the delay. The claim made by the petitioner does not fit into any of the provisions of the Act. Further, a writ petition cannot be a substitute for an appeal, in which the questions of limitation and Court-fee assume significance. What is prohibited to be done directly, in law, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. 7. It is true that some of the similarly situated persons filed WP No.4243 of 2001 and batch. Except directing that the respondents shall consider the representations made by them, this Court did not express any view as to their entitlement. As a matter of fact, an observation was made to the effect that the order shall not be construed as pronouncing upon the entitlement of the petitioners therein. 8. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.