ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2 . Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.2-2-82, admeasuring 215 Sq.yds situated at slum area, Amberpet, Hyderabad, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.211 of 1993 (P707 of 1991), dated 13.08.1991. Respondent No.2 has constructed community hall over the subject property by dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property without following due procedure laid down under law. Therefore, she has submitted a representation, dated 28.07.2018 to both the respondents requesting to restore her possession and award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondents did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondents, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of subject property under the aforesaid registered sale deed bearing document No.211 of 1993, dated 13.08.1991. She has filed a suit vide O.S.No.4132 of 1993 seeking perpetual injunction. Considering the fact that during pendency of the said suit, both defendants died, the said suit was dismissed. 4. In paragraph No.4 of the writ affidavit, she has specifically stated that she was in physical possession of the subject property till the year, 2005. Thereafter, due to continuous transfers to various districts, she cannot keep control over the possession of the subject property. Her husband was not in India and he went to abroad. Her children stayed with her and there was no male member in the family to look after the subject property. In the month of January, 2018, she went to the subject property and came to know about construction of community hall by respondent No.2 in the name and style of ‘Turab Nagar Community Hall’ by removing the existing structure. Therefore, there is a delay in approaching respondent No.2 by way of submitting the aforesaid representation. 5. In the month of January, 2018, she went to the subject property and came to know about construction of community hall by respondent No.2 in the name and style of ‘Turab Nagar Community Hall’ by removing the existing structure. Therefore, there is a delay in approaching respondent No.2 by way of submitting the aforesaid representation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, AIR (2011) SCC 2542 would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects and therefore the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Therefore, petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation, dated 28.07.2018 and restore the possession of the subject property. 6. Whereas, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that the said representation is of the year, 2018 i.e, 28.07.2018. If petitioner submits fresh representation to respondent No.2 he will consider the same in accordance with law. 7. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that the petitioner herein is claiming right over the subject property under registered sale deed. Even according to the petitioner, she was in physical possession of the subject property till the year, 2005 and in January, 2018, she came to know about the construction of community hall by respondent No.2 in the subject property. Therefore, she has submitted aforesaid representation, dated 27.07.2018 to respondents. Thus, there is delay of almost 13 years. Thereafter, there is delay of six years in filing the present writ petition. Thus, there are laches on the part of the petitioner herein 8. In Syed Maqbool (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as: “6. But that does not mean that the delay should be ignored or appellant should be given relief. In such matters, the person aggrieved should approach the High Court diligently. If the writ petition is belated, unless there is good and satisfactory explanation for the delay, the petition will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. But that does not mean that the delay should be ignored or appellant should be given relief. In such matters, the person aggrieved should approach the High Court diligently. If the writ petition is belated, unless there is good and satisfactory explanation for the delay, the petition will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Further the High Court should be satisfied that the case warrants the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , and that the matter is one where the alternative remedy of suit is not appropriate. For example, if the person aggrieved and the State are owners of adjoining lands and he claims that the State has encroached over a part of his land, or if there is a simple boundary dispute, the remedy will lie only in a civil suit, as the dispute does not relate to any highhanded, arbitrary or unreasonable action of the officers of the State and there is a need to examine disputed questions relating to title, extent and actual possession. But where the person aggrieved establishes that the State had highhandedly taken over his land without recourse to acquisition or deprived him of his property without authority of law, the landholder may seek his remedy in a writ petition. When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts. The question that will ultimately weigh with the High Court is this: Whether the person is seeking remedy in a matter which is primarily a civil dispute to be decided by a civil court, or Whether the matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and high-handed action. (See the decisions of this court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. , 2004 (3) SCC 553 and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers , 2008 (12) SCC 500 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2160 : 2008 AIR SCW 3373). 7. High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. 7. High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the land- holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.” In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court found fault in dismissing the writ petition by the High Court without examining the aforesaid aspects. 9. As discussed supra, in the present case, petitioner is claiming right over the subject property basing on the registered sale deed. However, there is delay in approaching respondents by way of submitting the representation, dated 28.07.2018 and filing the present writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner herein has to file fresh representation to respondent No.2 with a request to restore her possession. On submission of the said representation, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner on notice and affording her an opportunity of hearing. However, if respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall assign specific reasons and communicate copy of the said order to the petitioner. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation from the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation from the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.