JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This petition is filed by Shri Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh Vaghela, whose father was Thakor of Pindarda State, which was a part of original Gayakwad's State and comprised of several villages, whose lands are now part of periphery of capital city of Gandhinagar. The petition concerns agricultural lands of five Revenue Survey Nos. 62/64, 62/67, 62/92, 62/135 and 62 paikee of Village Borij, Taluka & District Gandhinagar. 2. Originally, when the petition was filed the prayers made by the petitioner were for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2004 (at Annexure-A to the petition) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar, rejecting the request of the petitioner for paying compensation for such lands acquired by the Government. Petitioner had also prayed for a direction to the respondents to immediately pay the compensation to the petitioner for such lands. During the pendency of the petition, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) was enacted. The petition was therefore amended and an additional prayer was made for declaration that in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 the acquisition of the lands in question has lapsed. 3. These prayers arise in the following background. 4. Petitioner was the owner of several parcels of agricultural lands, including Revenue Survey Nos. 62/64, 62/67, 62/92, 62/135 and 62 paikee of Village Borij, Taluka & District Gandhinagar. When the father of the petitioner expired, the petitioner was a minor. Therefore, as can be seen from Form No. 6 of the lands in question, Collector, Mehsana, was appointed as the guardian of Shri Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh Vaghela. The Government of Gujarat desired to set up new capital at Gandhinagar, for which lands of agriculturists in various clusters of villages were required. For such purpose, in order to acquire various agricultural lands of Village Borij, Taluka & District Gandhinagar, preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act of 1894) was issued on 10.03.1965. This notification included large number of agricultural lands of different owners. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, this notification included three Survey Nos. 62/64, 62/92 and 62/135 of Village Borij. A notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was thereafter issued on 21.08.1965, which also included the above mentioned three survey numbers of the petitioner. This notification included large number of agricultural lands of different owners. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, this notification included three Survey Nos. 62/64, 62/92 and 62/135 of Village Borij. A notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was thereafter issued on 21.08.1965, which also included the above mentioned three survey numbers of the petitioner. In such notification, the Government invoked urgency clause under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act of 1894 and proposed to take possession of the lands immediately without publishing award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. 5. Though the actual notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 covering land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 62/67 of the petitioner are not on record, from a panchnama dated 23.11.1965 of taking over possession of such land by the Government, it appears that such land was also part of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government at the relevant time. Likewise, the Government also took possession of the petitioner's lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 62/64, 62/92 and 62/135 drawing panchnama dated 23.02.1966. It is not clear when and how possession of the last of the land of the petitioner in question viz. Survey No. 62 paikee was taken over by the Government. 6. On 19.06.66 Shri Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh Vaghela became major. On 05.05.1968 therefore Collector, Gandhinagar, passed an order releasing all the lands of Pindarda State from the guardianship of the Collector. Collector noted that under an order dated 26.04.1949, on account of minority of Shri Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh Vaghela, the Collector was appointed as guardian under the Gujarat Court of Wards Act, 1963. Now that the said Shri Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh Vaghela has become major on 19.06.1966 all his lands of Pindarda State are released from the guardianship. 7. It appears that the State authorities after having initiated steps for acquiring the said lands of the petitioner under the Act of 1894, formed an opinion that these lands would vest in the Government by virtue of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 ("the Act of 1955" for short), Collector, Gandhinagar, therefore wrote to Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, on 10.06.1968 and pointed out to him that Pindarda State has been released from the guardianship of the Government by order dated 05.05.1968. Out of these lands following lands appear to have vested in the Government under Section 11 of the Act of 1955. Reference was made to all the five above noted survey numbers of Village Borij. Accordingly, the Collector requested the Mamlatdar to verify whether the lands are to be entered in the name of the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955 and to make necessary entries in the revenue record accordingly. If revenue has been paid after 01.08.1955 the same would become refundable. Mamlatdar should also verify the amount of refund payable, so that refund voucher can be issued. 8. Thereafter two important revenue entries were made in the land records concerning the said five survey numbers. Entry No. 768 was posted on 21.07.1968. It was recorded that on the basis of the order of Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, dated 20.07.1968 the lands have vested in the Government in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1955 w.e.f. 01.08.1955. This entry was certified on 10.01.1969. Another Entry No. 782 was posted in the revenue records on 05.08.1968 recording that as per the order of Collector dated 05.05.1968 since Thakor Shri Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh has attained majority on 19.06.1966, Pindarda State is released from the guardianship of the Collector. Accordingly, the name of the Collector be deleted from the land records and the name of Pushpendrasingh Ranjitsingh be entered. This entry was also certified on 10.01.1969. 9. The petitioner made, what the record would suggest, his first application for receiving compensation for the said lands on 16.08.1973. This application is not on record but reference to this application is found in the communication, from the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat Government, made to the petitioner on 29.08.1973. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made multiple such applications to the Government. Copy of one such application dated 08.12.1975 is produced at Annexure-E to the petition. In such application, addressed to the then Chief Minister of the State, the petitioner contended that he had filed an application dated 16.08.1973 and after that also he has not received any reply so far. He requested the Government to take an early decision so that he can receive compensation. He pointed out that period of nearly 10 years has passed in the meantime. 10. He requested the Government to take an early decision so that he can receive compensation. He pointed out that period of nearly 10 years has passed in the meantime. 10. In response to one such application made by the petitioner to the Government, Collector, Ahmedabad, wrote to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 04.05.1976 requesting to take early steps to resolve the question of compensation payable to the petitioner since the petitioner is making frequent representations. 11. In February, 1976, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had conveyed to the petitioner, in response to the application for compensation, that these survey numbers are in the name of the Government and that therefore the question of paying compensation does not arise. 12. On 21.07.1985 the petitioner again wrote to the Revenue Minister and raised the question of unpaid compensation of the said lands. On 21.04.1988 Section Officer of the Revenue Department wrote to the petitioner and conveyed to him that compensation for the petitioner's other lands acquired under award dated 23.02.1977 has already been paid on 17.07.1977. However, so far as lands bearing Survey Nos. 62/64, 62/67, 62/92, 62/135 and 62 paikee of Village Borij are concerned, the same have vested in the Government on 01.08.1955 under the Act of 1955 and that therefore the question of paying compensation for such lands does not arise. 13. On 16.03.1989 the Special Land Acquisition Officer wrote to the petitioner that his request for grant of compensation cannot be allowed as under the Act of 1955 such lands are vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955. 14. Despite the said reply, the petitioner again wrote to the Secretary, Revenue Department on 16.04.1991 and raised question of unpaid compensation for such lands. On 22.05.2000 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar, in his detained communication to the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, pointed out that under order dated 20.07.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar, lands in question have vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955 and revenue entries were accordingly posted, which were also certified by the Circle Officer on 10.01.1969. 15. Collector, Gandhinagar, wrote to the petitioner on 27.12.1993 conveying that he has made application for claiming compensation for the said survey numbers, however, by order dated 20.07.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar, lands are ordered to vest in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955 under the Act of 1955. 15. Collector, Gandhinagar, wrote to the petitioner on 27.12.1993 conveying that he has made application for claiming compensation for the said survey numbers, however, by order dated 20.07.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar, lands are ordered to vest in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955 under the Act of 1955. Under such order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal or revision and such order therefore has become final. Lands having vested in the Government the question of paying compensation does not arise. 16. Under letter dated 10.03.1994, Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, conveyed to the petitioner that his application dated 15.02.1994 for granting copy of the order dated 20.07.1968 cannot be granted since such order is not available on record. 17. Finally, the petitioner approached High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 4879/02. In such petition, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the authorities to fix and pay to the petitioner compensation for the lands in question, possession of which was already taken over way back in the year 1966. Such petition came to be disposed by Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.06.2002, which reads as under: "1. After the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions of the petitioner that the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a view to pursue the representation said to have been made by the petitioner before the Government, as per the copy at Annexure 'U' to the petition. Rejected as withdrawn." 18. The petitioner thereafter moved a fresh application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, after order of High Court. The petitioner continued his efforts for receiving compensation for which further representations were made. A copy of one such representation dated 16.11.2004 is found at Page 135 of the compilation of this petition. In such representation the petitioner has asserted his right to receive compensation for the lands in question. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his communication/order dated 31.12.2004 conveyed to the Under Secretary that the lands in question having vested in the Government under the Act of 1955, there is no question of paying compensation to the petitioner. Thereupon this fresh petition came to be filed in which, as noted above, the petitioner prayed for granting compensation and thereafter the petitioner amended the petition to include prayer for lapsing of acquisition under Section24(2) of the Act of 2013. 19. Thereupon this fresh petition came to be filed in which, as noted above, the petitioner prayed for granting compensation and thereafter the petitioner amended the petition to include prayer for lapsing of acquisition under Section24(2) of the Act of 2013. 19. Learned counsel Shri Mihir J. Thakore for the petitioner submitted that the lands in question originally belonged to the petitioner. The administration thereof was with the Collector, in view of the minority of the petitioner, when his father expired. The Government issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 clearly indicating that the lands were of the ownerships of the petitioner. Much later, under a purported order stated to have been passed by the Mamlatdar on 20.07.1968, the question of vesting the lands in question in the Government in terms of the Act of 1955 was raised. Such order was never supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was thus deprived of his valuable property, without payment of compensation. Counsel further submitted that merely at one stage the petitioner had approached High Court by filing a petition and withdrawn the same for the purpose of pursuing the representations to the Government would not debar this fresh petition. In this context counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivgonda Anna Patil & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1993) 3 SCC 5. 20. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353 to contend that right to property being a human right the State cannot deprive a citizen of such right otherwise by following the procedure established by law. In any case delay and latches cannot be pleaded to oppose the prayer of citizen asserting such right. 21. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent authorities, opposed the petition contending that by virtue of operation of the Act of 1955 the lands in question vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955. The Mamlatdar has also passed the corresponding order dated 20.07.1968. The petitioner never challenged such order. Revenue entry was posted and was certified on 10.01.1969, after service of notice and hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was aware about the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar has also passed the corresponding order dated 20.07.1968. The petitioner never challenged such order. Revenue entry was posted and was certified on 10.01.1969, after service of notice and hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was aware about the order passed by the Mamlatdar. For decades, he chose not to challenge the said order and continued to seek compensation. In view of such position, the petition should be dismissed. Merely because the State is unable to produce order of the Mamlatdar, due to passage of time, would not establish the petitioner's right to seek compensation. 22. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulammiya Husainmiya Malek vs. Union of India, 2000 (2) GLH 545, in which, for the same relief, when the petitioner had approached second time the court held that such petition would not be maintainable. 23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we may summarize the petitioner's case as under. 24. The lands in question belonged to the petitioner. Administration of the lands was being done by the Collector since the petitioner was minor when his father expired. Petitioner became major on 19.06.1966. Upon which the Collector passed order releasing the lands in question from guardianship. The Government issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 for acquiring the petitioner's lands, however, at no stage compensation was ever paid to the petitioner. The petitioner continued to make efforts with the Government all throughout till he filed the first petition in 2002, which was withdrawn for the purpose of pursuing representations to the Government. It was only when the Special Land Acquisition Officer finally rejected the application of the petitioner on 31.12.2004, the petitioner was compelled to approach the High Court again. 25. The facts on record are eloquent. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid agricultural lands of five survey numbers. According to the Government, however, Section 11 of the Act of 1955 applied to such lands and that therefore the Mamlatdar had passed an order declaring that the lands had vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955. Mamlatdar passed order dated 20.07.1968. 26. According to the Government, however, Section 11 of the Act of 1955 applied to such lands and that therefore the Mamlatdar had passed an order declaring that the lands had vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955. Mamlatdar passed order dated 20.07.1968. 26. The Act of 1955 was enacted to abolish the remaining alienation of miscellaneous character prevailing in the merged territories and to provide for matters consequential and incidental thereto. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act of 1955 defining terms "alienation". As per sub-section (4) of Section 2, if any questions regarding whether any land is an alienation besides others arise, the State Government would decide the same and such decision would be final. Proviso to Section 4, however, provided that the State Government may authorize any officer to decide such questions and subject to an appeal to the State Government, the decision of such officer shall be final. 27. Section 11 of the Act of 1955 reads as under: "11. All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on, or beside, the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours, creeks below high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes, wells and tanks, and all canals, and water courses, and all standing and flowing water, and all unbuilt village site lands, all waste lands and all uncultivated lands (excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural purposes) which are situate within the limits of any alienated land shall, except in so far as any rights of any person other than the alienee may be established in or over the same and except as may otherwise be provided by any law for the time being in force, vest in, and shall be deemed to be with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto the property of, the State Government and all rights held by an alienee in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished and it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the general or special orders of the State Government, to dispose them of as he deems fit, subject always to the rights of way and other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting." 28. Under this provision thus, any lands, which have remained uncultivated which are situated within the limits of any alienated lands, shall vest in the Government and all rights over the same would also be deemed to have been extinguished. It would be open for the Collector to dispose of such lands as he deems fit. Explanation of Section 11provides that for the purpose of this section, land shall be deemed to be uncultivated if it has not been cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately before the appointed date. 29. Section 17 of the Act of 1955 pertains to method of compensation payable to alienee under the said section. 30. Section 18 of the Act of 1955 pertains to method of award of compensation for abolishing, extinguishing or modifying of rights of other persons in the property. 31. It can thus be seen that, as noted, vesting of such lands in the Government from the date of coming into force of the Act of 1955 if Section 11 applies to such alienation. 32. According to the Government by virtue of the order dated 20.07.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar, it was declared that the petitioner's said five survey numbers vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955. It is true that due to passage of time the Government could not provide copy thereof to the petitioner, when asked in the year 1993. However, reference to such order is to be found at several places. As noted, way back in the year 1968-69, soon after the Mamlatdar passed such order, revenue entries were posted in the Government records. It was therefore that on 21.07.1968 Entry No. 768 was made concerning these survey numbers recording that by virtue of order dated 20.07.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar, the lands have vested in the Government in terms of Section11 of the Act of 1955 w.e.f. 01.08.1955. This entry was certified on 10.01.1969, according to the respondents, after due service of notice to the petitioner. Thus, the fact that the Mamlatdar had declared vesting of the lands in the Government under order dated 20.07.1968 was reflected in the land records right from the beginning. Quite apart from this, in several communications, the authorities had pointed out this fact to the petitioner in response to his persistent efforts to claim the compensation. Thus, the fact that the Mamlatdar had declared vesting of the lands in the Government under order dated 20.07.1968 was reflected in the land records right from the beginning. Quite apart from this, in several communications, the authorities had pointed out this fact to the petitioner in response to his persistent efforts to claim the compensation. As noted, as far back as in February, 1976, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar, wrote letter to the petitioner, in which it was pointed out that compensation for the survey numbers in question cannot be granted since such survey numbers are in the name of the Government. 33. On 16.03.1989 also the Special Land Acquisition Officer conveyed to the petitioner that his request for granting compensation cannot be accepted since it is found that the lands have vested in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955 under the Act of 1955 and therefore such lands have not been acquired. In fact in this very letter the Special Land Acquisition Officer conveyed to the petitioner that in view of such fact nothing further is to be done in his case. Several such communications were made to the petitioner by the authorities. Even on 27.12.1993 Collector, Gandhinagar had written to the petitioner, in which also the same stand was taken. Despite these letters from the authorities to the petitioner, he did not take recourse for the legal proceedings till 2002 when he filed the first petition i.e. SCA No. 4879/02. Thus, right from 1968 when the revenue records reflected the ownership of the Government on the basis of the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 20.07.1968, the petitioner, for the first time, asserted his right to claim compensation through legal proceedings, by filing petition in the year 2002, nearly 35 years had passed in the meantime. 34. It is not as if the petitioner was not aware of such developments. Such developments were to the notice of the petitioner and were brought to the notice by the Government authorities. Petitioner instead of filing appropriate proceedings chose to make multiple representations. It is true that at some stages the petitioner was conveyed that his grievance are being examined, however, majority of his representations were met with same reply viz. that in view of the vesting of the land in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955, the question of paying compensation does not arise. It is true that at some stages the petitioner was conveyed that his grievance are being examined, however, majority of his representations were met with same reply viz. that in view of the vesting of the land in the Government w.e.f. 01.08.1955, the question of paying compensation does not arise. If the petitioner had any grievance about the stand adopted by the Government it was his duty to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court. By making multiple representations reiterating the same requests, meeting with the same response, would not save the limitation. 35. It is not a case where the Government is squatting on the petitioner's land without authority of law. The case of the Government is that by virtue of Section 11 of the Act of 1955 the lands had vested in the Government. An order to that effect was passed by the Mamlatdar on 20.07.1968. Thus, by operation of law and by the declaration made by the Mamlatdar of vesting, the said lands of the petitioner had vested in the Government from 01.08.1955. Therefore the logic of not allowing the Government to bring the delay as one of the defences would not apply. In case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others (supra) the Supreme Court observed that right to property, though may not be fundamental right any longer, is recognized as human right and the State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. It was in this context observed that occupation of a private land by the State Government without authority of law would amount to encroachment. However, the facts in the present case are not parallel. In the present case the State refers the order of a quasi-judicial authority i.e. Mamlatdar declaring vesting of the land in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1955. It is true that the Government is unable to provide such order. However, the petitioner himself, having caused such inordinate delay in taking legal recourse cannot make capital out of this factor. 36. We may recall that the order may have been passed by the Mamlatdar on 20.07.1968 nevertheless the event of vesting of lands in the Government would take place from 01.08.1955. However, the petitioner himself, having caused such inordinate delay in taking legal recourse cannot make capital out of this factor. 36. We may recall that the order may have been passed by the Mamlatdar on 20.07.1968 nevertheless the event of vesting of lands in the Government would take place from 01.08.1955. Therefore if between 01.08.1955 and before the Mamlatdar passed his order of vesting of the lands dated 20.07.1968, any acquisition proceedings have been initiated, the same would not reflect the ownership rights of the parties or mean that the Government must continue such acquisition proceedings and pass an award and pay compensation to the petitioner. If therefore by operation of law, by an order passed by the Mamlatdar the lands are vested in the Government, the fact that earlier at one stage notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 were issued for acquiring such lands would be of no consequences. 37. In view of such facts, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We may however clarify that this is not on the ground that the petition is filed second time. Earlier petition was disposed of allowing the petitioner to pursue the representations with the Government. Once such representations were disposed of by further order, it may be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. 38. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.