JUDGMENT : 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 31.08.2013 (Annexures- 4, 4/1 & 4/2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.4 to the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as he has right, title and possession over the land appertaining to Khata Nos. 81, 77, 77, 32 & 32, Plot Nos. 259, 260, 256, 203 & 255, Mouza-Kudahatu, Thana No. 278, P.S-Kumardungi, District-West Singhbhum, measuring an area of 0.07 Acre, 0.45 Acre, 0.08 Acre, 0.30 Acre, 0.05 Acre respectively (total area 0.95 Acre) particularly considering the fact that the petitioner’s father-Late Gopal Gagrai had purchased the said land from the respondent No.9 by virtue of registered deed of transfer bearing No. 503 dated 14.02.1985 after obtaining permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia that some land were acquired for widening and strengthening of Tantnagar to Majhgaon via Bharbharia Kumardungi road in the year 2013-14 by the respondent No.4. During the said land acquisition process, notices were issued and payments were made to the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 for the land in question. 4. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the land in question were acquired in the year 2013-14 for widening of the aforesaid road. The petitioner has challenged the notices issued to the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 in the year 2013 calling upon them to submit their claim regarding the nature of the land and the quantum of compensation as well as objection against measurement of the same, if any. As per the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the compensation has already been paid to the said noticees-the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 in the year 2013-14 itself. The petitioner has not assigned any cogent reason in the writ petition as to why he committed delay of more than six years in challenging the said notices issued to the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned notices dated 31.08.2013 at this belated stage. The petitioner has not assigned any cogent reason in the writ petition as to why he committed delay of more than six years in challenging the said notices issued to the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned notices dated 31.08.2013 at this belated stage. Accordingly, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the land in question. 5. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.