IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that public interest litigations are subject to the principle of laches, and unexplained delays can result in dismissal regardless of the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Amit Borkar, J.) :

1. This public interest litigation, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is instituted by the petitioners, who claim to be residents of village Dhangawadi, Taluka Bhor, District Pune. The petitioners seek redress for grievances related to the allotment of land to respondent No. 5, requesting the cancellation of the allotment, an inquiry into the alleged illegalities in the land allotment process, and the transfer of the land to individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Economically Backward Classes.

2. The subject matter of this public interest litigation concerns land located in Gat No. 237 in village Dhangawadi, Taluka Bhor, District Pune, measuring 14 hectares and 35 ares, as described in paragraph 6 of the petition. The petitioners stated that on 2 March 1993, the District Collector, Pune, reserved a portion of this land measuring 0.04 hectares for a Muslim community burial ground (Kabristan). Subsequently, on 26 September 1994, an area of 0.40 hectares was allotted to the Divisional Engineer, Telephones. On 23 December 1994, the District Collector, Pune, approved a scheme for impoverished individuals belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the Village Extension Scheme, reserving 2 hectares and 92 ares of land from Gat No. 237 for the implementation of this scheme.

3. According to Petitioners, On 1 March 1995, respondent No. 3 appointed the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Bhor, to measure the land and demarcate 110 plots for allotment to poor individuals from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the Village Extension Scheme. The Inspector of Land Records conducted the measurement on 20 June 1995, demarcating 110 plots. On 22 March 1995, an amount of Rs. 4,700/- was sanctioned for implementing the Village Extension Scheme and was disbursed by the Tahsildar, Bhor. However, the 110 plots were not handed over to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community members. On 30 November 1996, the Collector, Pune, communicated to respondent No. 5 that the land could not be allotted for an educational institution as it was designated for national highway boundary widening and was classified as an industrial zone.

4. The petitioners stated that on 18 May 1994, respondent No. 4 applied for the allotment of Gat No. 237 for educational purposes. On 31 December 1996, the Collector communicated to the Commissioner, Pune, indicating that the land could be allotted to respondent No. 5 for educational purposes if converted into an agricultural and non-development zone, with the condition that 20% of the total area be developed. The Commissioner, Pune Region, after considering relevant departmental suggestions and opinions, rejected the demand of respondent No. 5 on 29 July 1997. Consequently, the District Collector informed respondent No. 5 that their request for land allotment was denied. Nevertheless, on 27 March 1998, the District Collector recommended to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) the allotment of 10 hectares and 18 ares from Gat No. 237 to respondent No. 5, contingent upon the construction of buildings covering 20% of the land area to a height of up to the first floor, following the Regional Zonal Scheme's implementation. The Commissioner communicated approval for the allotment on 29 July 1997. The petitioners allege that respondent No. 4 misused his position as an ex-MLA to facilitate the transfer of the land. Consequently, the State of Maharashtra, by order dated 19 June 1999, allotted 2 hectares and 90 ares for educational purposes and 1 hectare for a playground for 15 years, at a nominal rent of Rs. 1/- per year. This allotment was conditioned on the land being used for a Junior College, Dairy Technology, Agricultural and Science studies, and Boys’ and Girls’ Hostels, with construction requiring permission from the competent authority. On 24 July 1999, the District Collector, Pune, informed respondent No. 5 that his applica