JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to provide job as well as compensation in lieu of the acquired land situated within the Mouza Chhota Bhorai No.7, P.S. Boarizore, District-Godda under Jamabandi No.17 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the said land”). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to cancel the appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 and to recover the compensation obtained by them fraudulently by showing themselves as the owner of the said land which actually belongs to the petitioner. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the said land was recorded in the last Gantzer’s settlement in the name of one Lakhiya Kaharin and the petitioner is the heir of the recorded tenant. The said land was acquired by the respondent- Eastern Coalfields India Limited (ECL) in the year 2003, however neither any job nor any compensation was given to the husband of the petitioner. After the death of her husband, when the petitioner being the heir enquired the matter, she came to know that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 had been given appointment as well as compensation on their false claim that they were the real owner of the said land with the help of forged documents prepared at their instance in connivance with some government officials. The petitioner made representation to the Chief Manager, Rajmahal Project (Area) setting out her claim in detail, however no heed was paid to the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 did not have the right, title and possession over the said land, but they were given the job and compensation against the said land which is liable to be cancelled and recovered. It is further submitted that the mother of the respondent No.7 had filed M.P. Case No. 636 of 2011 before In-charge Officer-II, Santhal Paragana Settlement, Dumka for deleting the name of the brother of petitioner’s father-in-law namely, Laldhari Pahariya and the name of the petitioner’s father-in- law, namely Fuchu Pahariya from the Khatiyan seeking her name to be recorded in place of petitioner’s ancestors, but her claim was rejected vide order dated 06.06.2012. 4. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-ECL submits that the said land was acquired in the year 2001 by the ECL under the provisions of Coal bearing (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 and on the basis of the records of the Circle Office, Boarjore, District- Godda, the land was recorded in the name of Lakhiya Kaharin who died issueless. Jagdish Malto (Pradhan) filed Faut Case vide S.E. No.135/77-78 in the Court of SDO, Godda and accordingly the said Jamabandi Jote Land was declared “faut”. One Cyril Malto filed Settlement Case No.168/77-78 before the SDO, Godda for settlement of land pertaining to Jamabandi No.17 and vide Order dated 16.03.1979, the said settlement case was allowed and the land in question was settled and since then the settlee came in possession of the land in question. Mutation Case No.2/2005-2006 was allowed and Correction Slip was issued in favour of Prem Lata Malto and the rent receipt was also issued in her favour. It is further submitted that the question of title cannot be adjudicated in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is claiming her right upon the said land claiming to be the heir of the recorded tenant. However, the Circle Office, Boariojore vide Letter No.315 dated 13.07.2011 reported that the petitioner is not the heir of the recorded tenant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The claim of the petitioner before this Court is that she is the heir of the recorded tenant, however the compensation and the employment in lieu of acquisition of the said land has wrongly been provided to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Admittedly, the said land was acquired in the year 2003 and she agitated her claim before the respondent Chief Manager, Rajmahal Project (Area) by way of representation after a decade i.e. in the year 2012 when the land was already acquired by giving compensation and providing employment to the respondent Nos.6 and 7. No sufficient explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why she did not agitate the matter during course of acquisition itself. It is quite difficult to believe that a person who was residing in the said locality could not know about the process of acquisition in time. 6. No sufficient explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why she did not agitate the matter during course of acquisition itself. It is quite difficult to believe that a person who was residing in the said locality could not know about the process of acquisition in time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the order passed in M.P. Case No. 636/2011 whereby the claim of the mother of the respondent No.7 for inserting her name in Khata No.4 by deleting the name of Laldhari Pahariya and Fuchu Pahariya has been rejected by observing that the order dated 02.07.2007 was passed in Ejectment Case No. 02/07 against the father of the respondent No.7 for ejecting him from Jamabandi No. 17. 7. I am of the considered view that the acquisition proceedings which was completed far back, cannot be reopened merely on the basis of order passed in M.P. Case No. 636 of 2011. The petitioner has failed to show before this Court any illegality in the acquisition proceedings of the said land by the concerned authority. 8. It is the specific stand of the respondent-ECL that the recorded tenant of the said land had no heir and in support of the said contention, letter dated 13.07.2011 issued by the Circle Office, Boarijore has been brought on record. Thus, the title of the petitioner upon the said land is disputed which cannot be adjudicated in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. Otherwise also, though the law of limitation normally does not apply in the writ proceedings, yet several judicial pronouncements have been made from time-to-time that the delay, which is unexplained and inordinate, can be a ground to refuse the relief as claimed in the writ petition. Moreover, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act, 1894”) specifically provides that if a person has any objection to the award, he may make application to the Collector for reference to the Court for deciding the objection whether the same is relating to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The period of limitation for filing the said application is also provided in sub-section(2) of Section 18 of the Act, 1894 wherein it has been provided that if the objector was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, it is to be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award and in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1894, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. The petitioner has not been able to give sufficient explanation as to why she did not agitate the matter before the Collector within the said period of limitation. 9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any ground to entertain the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition being devoid the merit is accordingly dismissed.