ORDER : 1. It appears from order dated 11th July, 2022 that due to inadvertence name of Mr. Uday Kant Thakur has been recorded as learned counsel for the petitioner which ought not to have been recorded since he is no more, as would appear from order dated 17th March, 2021. 2. In view thereof, reference of name of Mr. Uday Kant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is deleted from order dated 11th July, 2022 and in his place name of Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy is replaced as learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, order dated 11th July, 2022 is modified to that extent. 4. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein direction has been sought for upon the respondents for quashing order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Case No. 01/1997-98 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected for payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner belongs to him. 5. The fact leading to filing of this writ petition is that the land which is the subject matter of writ petition is claimed to be owned by the writ petitioner but the same was acquired for the purpose of construction of ‘Pucca Nala’. 6. According to writ petitioner, the land in question has been utilized for the purpose of making ‘Pucca Nala’ but without any making compensation, therefore, the instant writ petition. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 to 4 dated 21.12.2013 wherein stand inter alia has been taken that on the above land there was already an old ‘Kachha’ Nala for the use of petitioner and public at large. The district administration since has taken a decision for beautification of Godda Town therefore, decision was taken to convert the old ‘Kachha Nala’ to ‘Pucca Nala’ in the year 1996-97 and as such according to the State, no land was acquired for constructing ‘Pucca Nala’ and hence, there is no question for direction to make payment of compensation in favour of petitioner. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that since the land in question is being utilized for public utility since 1996-97 as such the cause of action accrued in the year 1996-97 but after lapse of 20 years, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2013 seeking direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation in lieu of alleged acquisition of land. Therefore, on this ground also the writ petitioner deserves no positive direction from this Court. Learned counsel for the State has referring to order dated 25.03.2013, as appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, has submitted that since the Deputy Commissioner, Godda taking into consideration the factual aspect i.e., conversion of ‘Kachha Nala’ into ‘Pucca Nala’, which is being used by the writ petitioner as well as by the public at large, rejected the claim of the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid order is having no infirmity. Further, submission has been made taking reference of supplementary affidavit dated 20.02.2015 that title suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 1994 filed by one Md. Sudin was decided vide order dated 24.01.1998 against the writ petitioner, which was affirmed in appeal being Title Appeal No. 8/4 of 1998 vide order dated 29.06.1998. Therefore, since the issue of title has already been decided by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction negating the title of the writ petitioner, on this count also the writ petitioner cannot claim compensation for the alleged acquisition of land. 9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the impugned order dated 25.03.2013. The fact, leading to filing of the writ petition is that in pursuance to decision taken by district administration for beautification of Godda Town the old ‘Kachha Nala’ was converted into ‘Pucca Nala’ way back in the year 1996-97. Thereafter, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2013 claiming compensation on the ground that the land in question which was being utilized for the public utility service since belongs to the petitioner, as such the said land is only allowed to be utilized, if acquired through land acquisition mechanism. Thereafter, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2013 claiming compensation on the ground that the land in question which was being utilized for the public utility service since belongs to the petitioner, as such the said land is only allowed to be utilized, if acquired through land acquisition mechanism. Serious objection has been raised on behalf of respondent-State regarding the aforesaid claim taking the plea that the claim is belated one since the land upon which the petitioner is raising claim is being utilized since 1996-97 but no objection was raised rather after 20 years the writ petition has been filed. Further ground has been taken that the issue of title of the land has already been adjudicated by Original Court in title suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 1994 vide order dated 24.01.1998 which was affirmed by the appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 8/4 of 1998 vide order dated 29.06.1998, therefore, no right is accrued to claim compensation in lieu of alleged compensation of land for the purpose of construction of ‘Pucca Nala’, which was already constructed in the year 1996-97. There is no dispute about the fact that if any land is to be acquired for public utility service, the State Government is empowered to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before its repealment and after its repealment by virtue of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The writ petitioner although claims that the aforesaid land has not been utilized under the land acquisition mechanism but it is evident from the stand taken by the writ petitioner itself in the supplementary affidavit dated 20.02.2015 wherein issue of title of aforesaid land has been mentioned stating that suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 1994, filed for deciding the title of the land in question, was decided vide order dated 24.01.1998 against the writ petitioner and which was affirmed by the appellate Court vide order dated 29.06.1998 in Title Appeal No. 8/4 of 1998. Therefore, he cannot claim the compensation since the land does not belong to him. Therefore, he cannot claim the compensation since the land does not belong to him. This Court, therefore, is of the view that merely on that ground the writ petition deserves to be dismissed but since the issue of delay and laches has also been raised by learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, the same is also required to be dealt with taking into consideration the settled position of law that the writ petition cannot be entertained after inordinate delay since the principle of delay and laches is well applicable while exercising power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Herein, in the given facts of the case the land is alleged to have been acquired in the year 1996-97 but the petitioner has put forth his claim by way of filing the instant writ petition after lapse of 20 years that too without any explanation. 11. This Court, taking into consideration decree/judgment passed by the original Court being confirmed by the appellate Court, is of the view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing any positive direction. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.