ORDER : I.A. No. 1776 of 2015 I.A. No. 1776 of 2015 has been filed for addition of following prayer : “And the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to get initiate the proceeding for fixing the compensation of acquired land of the petitioner. Let notice be issued to the collector, Hazaribagh to start a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act for fixing the compensation of the land of the petitioner acquired by the respondents”. From the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I find no legal right in the petitioners to seek a direction upon the respondents for initiating a proceeding for fixation of compensation for the acquired land. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1776 of 2015 is dismissed. W.P. (C) No. 6402 of 2014 Seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners and to provide employment to the petitioner nos. 1, 5 and 7 in terms of respondent-CCL's policy, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts narrated in the writ petition are that, the ancestors of the petitioners were recorded raiyats and owners of the land comprised in Khata no. 92/25 in Village-Bhadwa, Thana-Mandu, District-Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh). The said land was settled by the exlandlord by a Hukumnama and after vesting of the Jamindari in the State of Bihar, the ancestors of the petitioners were recognised as tenants and they were granted rent receipts. In the year, 1988, the respondent-CCL for the purpose of Arrah Project under Kuju Area, acquired aforesaid land and the agreement was executed between the petitioner nos. 2, 3, husband of the petitioner no. 7 and one Bhola Mahto and the Project Officer, Arrah Project, on 13.05.1988 under which it was agreed that if the ownership certificate from the District Administration is obtained, the land owners would be paid compensation. The respondent-CCL also agreed to give employment. It is stated that the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 got employment under the respondent-CCL however, even after lapse of several years, the respondent-authorities have not paid compensation to the land owners. A report from the Circle Officer, Mandu was submitted to the District Land Acquisition Officer on 19.11.1988 stating that some part of the land is cultivating land and some part is Tand. 2, 3, 4 and 6 got employment under the respondent-CCL however, even after lapse of several years, the respondent-authorities have not paid compensation to the land owners. A report from the Circle Officer, Mandu was submitted to the District Land Acquisition Officer on 19.11.1988 stating that some part of the land is cultivating land and some part is Tand. A report was also submitted by the Anchal Amin on 14.09.1992 stating that the land in question belonged to the ancestors of the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 made representation on 02.05.1996 to the respondent no. 4 however, even after lapse of so many years, compensation to the petitioners have not been paid. Vide letter dated 09.05.1996, the petitioners were directed to approach Chief Survey Officer on 14.05.1996 and after the petitioners produced relevant documents, they were assured that compensation would be paid to them by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since no compensation was paid to the petitioners, on 27.02.2008 the petitioners made representation and the petitioners sent a legal notice on 25.06.2012 however, the respondents are not taking any action in the matter and therefore, constrained, the petitioners have approached this court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the stand taken in the writ petition and submits that without paying compensation to the petitioners and without providing employment to the petitioner nos. 1, 5 and 7, the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired by the respondent-CCL and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent-CCL to pay compensation to the petitioners and provide employment in terms of its own policy. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-CCL raises objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts. It is submitted that the petitioners have admitted that employment to petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 has been provided by the respondent-CCL and a notice dated 09.05.1996 was issued to respondent nos. 1, 2 and husband of the respondent no. 7 however, they have suppressed the facts in relation to the events after notice dated 09.05.1996. It is further submitted that long delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court makes the claim of the petitioners highly suspicious. 5. 1, 2 and husband of the respondent no. 7 however, they have suppressed the facts in relation to the events after notice dated 09.05.1996. It is further submitted that long delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court makes the claim of the petitioners highly suspicious. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. After taking four adjournments, the petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit dated 24.03.2015 and I.A. No. 1776 of 2015 on 24.03.2015 still, the necessary facts establishing the genuineness of the claim of the petitioners have not been pleaded by the petitioners in the present proceeding. It appears that an agreement was executed between one Bhola Mahto, Chotu Mahto, Golu Mahto and Rameshwar Mahto and the Project Officer of the respondent-CCL in which it was agreed that after the authentication of the land, process for providing employment and compensation would be initiated. Vide notice dated 09.05.1996 the above-named Bhola Mahto, Jhari Mahto, Budhu Mahto and Golu Mahto were directed to appear before the Chief Survey Officer and to produce relevant documents to the Chief Survey Officer, Arrah. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that after they appeared before the Chief Survey Officer on 14.05.1996, they were assured that they would be paid compensation by the Land Acquisition officer. About 12 years thereafter, the petitioners made representation on 27.02.2008 seeking compensation. In the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as under : 14. “That thereafter the petitioner went to the office of the respondents authorities with all the documents, whereon the officers had given assurances that the compensation of the land will be paid as soon as possible after assessing the compensation amount by the Land Acquisition officer. 15. That it is stated that the petitioners have been waiting several years though no compensation of the land was paid by the respondents then the petitioners made a representation on 27.02.2008 but got no result”. 6. From the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioners have intentionally suppressed the events between 14.05.1996 and 27.02.2008. In paragraph no. 8, the petitioners have admitted that the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 have got employment however, date on which they were provided employment by respondent-CCL has not been disclosed by the petitioners. 7. 6. From the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioners have intentionally suppressed the events between 14.05.1996 and 27.02.2008. In paragraph no. 8, the petitioners have admitted that the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 have got employment however, date on which they were provided employment by respondent-CCL has not been disclosed by the petitioners. 7. As noticed above, the petitioners sought four adjournments however, they have not brought relevant materials on record. It is averred that after making representation on 27.02.2008, the petitioners sent legal notice on 25.06.2012. Again, the petitioners have not disclosed the steps taken by them in those four years. The petitioners have failed to explain the delay of about 20 years in approaching this Court. Not only there is inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court, it appears that, the present writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts. In notice dated 09.05.1996, it was indicated that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act was pending before the State of Bihar however, the petitioners have not disclosed whether they approached or not the Government of Bihar before 15.11.2000, when the State of Jharkhand was created. The State of Bihar and the Chief Survey Officer have not been impleaded as party-respondent in the writ petition. In “S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath”, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 5. “................ We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. ….......”. 8. Considering the above facts, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.