ORDER : [Aravind Kumar, J.] 1. Petitioners are seeking for the following prayers. 12(A) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or order or direction holding that the utilization of the respective land of the petitioners by the respondent no.2 for the purpose of Canal without any statutory award is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and thereupon this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate land acquisition proceedings and to pass an award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and thereupon be pleased to direct them to release the appropriate compensation with statutory benefits as early as possible. (B) Further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order to pay 80% advance compensation to the petitioners as provided under the provisions of Right to in Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, and Resettlement Act, Rehabilitation 2013 during pendency of the acquisition proceedings of the lands of the petitioners; (C) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or order or direction holding that action of the respondent no.2 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of article 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and thereupon be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to award damages or rental compensation with regard to the taking over possession of the respective lands since the year 2008-2009. (D) That this Honourable Court be pleased to pass such other further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may demand. 2. We have heard the argument of Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State. 3. Perused the records. The sum and substance of the petitioner’s case is that they are the owners of different bits of lands in Village–Kundaliya, Taluka–Vav, District–Banaskantha, namely, as described herein under:- Petitioner No. Revenue Survey No. New Revenue Survey No. 1 726 1400 2 1078 289 3 1161 213 4 499 1397 5 481 940 6 1098 paiki, 1102, 1103 876 883 881 7 1099 874 8 481 940 4. As could be seen from the above tabular column, petitioners have not indicated as to the actual extend held by each of them. The thrust of arguments of Mr. Rakesh Patelm is lands as indicated above have been utilized for construction of Radhanesada Distributary Canal of Narmada Yojana way-back in the year 2008-09 and at the time of taking over possession, lump-sum amount was granted to them and they were assured of final payment after initiating land acquisition proceedings and by passing an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and yet such assurance given by the State has not crystallized even after a long lapse of time. It is also stated that petitioners had visited the office of 2nd respondent repeatedly and demanded for payment of legitimate compensation with regard to the lands utilized for Canal purposes and till date no award has been passed and compensation has not been paid. Hence, he seeks for petition being allowed. 5. Per-Contra, learned AGP appearing for the State would contend that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. She would also contend that petitioners are guilty of suppression of facts namely they have not disclosed as to when the acquisition took place; when the lump-sum compensation was paid to them and as to what steps they took from 2008-09 till the date of filing of the petition i.e. on 21.11.2022. Hence, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1995 (4) SCC 683 , she has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. By way of rejoinder, Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that petitioners being rustic villagers and not conversant with the worldly affairs, have been deprived of their legitimate right and as such he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SC 508 for petition being allowed. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records and after bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, it requires to be noticed at the outset that averments made in the petition is as vague, vagueness could be. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records and after bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, it requires to be noticed at the outset that averments made in the petition is as vague, vagueness could be. Petition is bereft of material particulars namely, it does not even disclose the date on which preliminary and final notifications having been issued. 8. Be that as it may. Since petitioners are contending that there is no land acquisition proceedings initiated yet it was incumbent upon the petitioners to spell out atleast the date on which the possession of the land was taken. Even assuming for a moment that such details were not within the knowledge of the petitioners, the fact remains that lump-sum compensation was paid to the petitioners and this is admitted by the petitioners themselves in Paragraph-4 of the present petition. Their admission reads as under:- “4. It is respectfully submitted that at the time of taking over the possession of the land, some lump-sum amount was given and it was assured to pay final payment after initiating land acquisition proceedings and award under the land acquisition act, 1984.” 9. As to what amount each of the petitioners received and what is the extent of land, which they purportedly have lost for the establishment of the Canal is also not forthcoming. It may be noted with benefit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya, Gramin Bank Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor and Ors. reported in (1998) 7 SCC 469 has held that petitioners must fully aver of the facts in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held as under:- “……..It is too well settled that die petitioner who approaches the court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 must fully aver and establish his rights flowing from the bundle of facts thereby requiring respondent to indicate its stand either by denial or by positive assertions. But in the absence of any averments in the writ petition or even in the rejoinder affidavit it is not permissible for a court to arrive at a conclusion on a factual position merely on the basis of submissions made in course of hearing. But in the absence of any averments in the writ petition or even in the rejoinder affidavit it is not permissible for a court to arrive at a conclusion on a factual position merely on the basis of submissions made in course of hearing. The High Court, therefore, in our view committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that there existed vacancies in the post of Field Supervisor on the materials produced before it. In fact the respondents herein who were the petitioners in the High Court had not produced any material in support of their stand that vacancies existed and yet appointments have not been made. We are of the considered opinion that conclusion of the High Court that there existed vacancies is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.” 10. In this background, we are compelled to hold that pleadings in the instant case are not only bald, but also vague and bereft of material particulars. Even according to petitioners, they have lost their lands somewhere in the year 2008-09. It is also their admission that lump-sum compensation has been paid to them. However, they would contend that there was an assurance extended by the State and its authorities that land acquisition proceedings would be initiated; award would be passed and compensation would be paid. They also contend that petitioners had visited the office of respondent no.2 repeatedly requesting for compensation. When such is the assertion in the petition, it was incumbent upon them to state as to what transpired from the date they received compensation way-back in the year 2008 or 2009 till the date of filing of the petition i.e. November 2022. There is not even a whisper in the petition except a bald statement of having visited the office of 2nd respondent. Particularly, when a oral statement is made which cannot be verified, mere assertion of petitioners being rustic villagers would not suffice for this Court to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, until and unless, such right having been enforced within a reasonable time and particularly, when the action of the State is being questioned and sought for being remedied in extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 11. In so far as judgment of the Apex Court, which has been relied upon by Mr. 11. In so far as judgment of the Apex Court, which has been relied upon by Mr. Rakesh Patel to buttresses his argument, on perusal would disclose in the said case, petitioners therein were divested of their land without any compensation being paid. It is in this background, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there was violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Such is not the factual aspect in the instance case. On the other-hand, even according to the admitted position, after the lands of the petitioners were taken for establishment of Canal, lump-sum compensation was paid to them with their eyes-wide open, they have received the said compensation without any demur or protest and we say so for the simple reason that petitioners except making a bald averments in this regard, no material whatsoever has been placed on record. When there was private negotiation and same having crystallized by way of payment of compensation by the State and its instrumentalities, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioners after lapse of 16 years to resile from said arrangement that they have entered into and contend something contrary to same and Hon’ble Apext Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another referred to by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has exercised the powers to direct the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings by virtue of directions issued in exercise of power vested under Articles -136 and 142 of the Constitution of India. 12. As such we are of the considered view that said decision relied upon by the petitioners, would be inapplicable to the facts on hand or would not come to the assistance of the petitioners. In the absence of any material being placed by petitioner to establish that respondent authorities had awarded any additional amount even that too by passing an award, this Court would not be in a position to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction. 13. To a pointed question to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to whether petitioners are ready and willing to give up the interest component in the event of this Court directing respondents to pay award exclude interest posed by the Court, the matter had got adjourned from 30.11.2022 till date and on repeating said question, Mr. 13. To a pointed question to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to whether petitioners are ready and willing to give up the interest component in the event of this Court directing respondents to pay award exclude interest posed by the Court, the matter had got adjourned from 30.11.2022 till date and on repeating said question, Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned counsel expressed his inability to give any such consent on account of lack of instructions in this regard by the petitioners and he has stated that petitioners have not given such consent and as such he is not in a position to make any statement. For the fault of petitioners, State cannot be made to expend taxpayers money and compensation ordered to be paid to the petitioners on account of inordinate, unexplained delay, which is all prevalent in the instance case. 14. For the myriad reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered view that it is not fit case where the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court requires to be exercised. Consequently, petition shall stand dismissed. Learned AGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within Eight weeks from today.