JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, dated 4.4.2013 by which His Lordship allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, respondent herein. The appellants - respondents were directed to consider the case of the respondent - writ petitioner for payment of compensation for his land that was acquired by the Government in the year 1978 for formation of ‘Jammulamma Balancing Reservoir’ on par with private landowners, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The short fact of the case is that the respondent – writ petitioner is a freedom fighter having participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in the year 1947-48 against the then Nizam of Hyderabad State and he was also imprisoned in the movement. After independence, he was assigned land under Freedom Fighters quota to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Sy No.65 situated at Jammiched Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. After the assignment, the petitioner developed the land and made fit for cultivation by digging a well, after obtaining loan from bank. This land was acquired by the Government for formation of Jammulamma Balancing Reservoir for drinking water to Gadwal Town and surrounding villages. The petitioner’s land was also sub-merged under Kothapalli Lift Irrigation. The private patta landowners whose lands were acquired in the said project were paid compensation, but the petitioner was not paid any compensation for the land acquired, but he was paid only an amount of Rs.7,000/- for the well which he dug for cultivation of his land. 3. The land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1978. However, the compensation amount was paid and received in 1983. Since then until 2010 the petitioner did not make any complaint nor ventilate grievance with regard to the aforesaid acquisition of land as regards the amount of compensation. Thereafter, through his Lawyer the petitioner for the first time demanded more compensation without any basis. Now, in the writ petition, for the first time it was claimed that because of possession of land for more than ten years, he has acquired status of patta holder and as such compensation should be paid on par with looser of patta holders. The learned trial Judge accepted this plea and found that the relief should be granted. 4. Now, in the writ petition, for the first time it was claimed that because of possession of land for more than ten years, he has acquired status of patta holder and as such compensation should be paid on par with looser of patta holders. The learned trial Judge accepted this plea and found that the relief should be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the respondent – writ petitioner is estopped from making any claim whatsoever after having received compensation. The petitioner after a period of more than twenty seven years, has come up to make a further claim which is not tenable under law. Learned counsel for the appellants also argues that there is no explanation in the writ petition for the inordinate delay. Therefore, the Government has refused to accede to the demand of the writ petitioner by passing an endorsement dt.23.8.2010 though the word was mentioned as ‘deferred’. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent – writ petitioner taking advantage of the aforesaid endorsement contends that fair amount of compensation has not been given as it has been done to other cases of similarly placed land oustees. According to him, the Government should have treated the writ petitioner as patta holder as the petitioner has been in possession as assignee for more than ten years and by operation of law the petitioner has acquired status of pattaholder and higher compensation should have been allowed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. As has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants there has been simply no explanation for filing the writ petition in the year 2010 as the amount of compensation was paid in the year 1983. According to us, making a representation asserting for payment of higher amount of compensation after twenty seven years does not diminish adverse effect of the petitioner’s prolonged inaction which virtually destroyed the petitioner’s alleged right. It is an admitted position that when the petitioner’s land was taken in 1978 it was not challenged. Amount of compensation was also not challenged. In the letter of demand for compensation only higher amount was claimed. Superior interest in the land was never made and in the writ petition for the first time such a claim was made out. It is an admitted position that when the petitioner’s land was taken in 1978 it was not challenged. Amount of compensation was also not challenged. In the letter of demand for compensation only higher amount was claimed. Superior interest in the land was never made and in the writ petition for the first time such a claim was made out. According to us, this claim of the status of patta holder is absolutely unacceptable as the same is an afterthought. Because of unexplained delay, and after receiving the amount of compensation without reservation or protest, the writ petition should have been dismissed. The learned trial Judge, without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter which is a very vital one, though such plea was taken by the appellants – respondents in their counter in the writ petition, passed the impugned order and hence the same is not sustainable as it does not stand to scrutiny. 8. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.