The maintainability of a writ petition for specific performance is vitiated by delay and the principle that claims barred by limitation are not justiciable in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. State of West Bengal and its functionaries have preferred the present appeal against the judgement and order dated August 16, 2024 passed in WPA 13591 of 2013.

2. By the impugned judgement and order, learned single judge has allowed a writ petition of the private respondent and directed the appellants to offer a plot and executed and register the lease deed at the original price in respect thereof. In the event such plot could not be allotted to the private respondent then, the appellants have to offer any other suitable plot to the private respondent.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the private respondent is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. He has contended that, the writ petition was essentially in the nature of a specific performance of an allotment that was granted to the respondent in 1981. He has contended that, the claims made by the private respondent in the writ petition are barred by the laws of limitation. Moreover, according to him, the private respondent is seeking to bypass the issue of limitation by way of the writ petition.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, questions of limitation with respect to specific performance involve disputed questions of facts and that, such disputed questions should not be decided by way of a writ petition. He has relied upon 2022 SCC Online SC 247 (Municipal Council Gondia vs. Divi Works & Suppliers, HUF and Others ) and 2025 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) 461 ( State of West Bengal vs. Savin World Resorts Private Limited ) in support of such contention.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the pleas of the private respondent in seeking to explain the delay in filing the writ petition are unacceptable. He has pointed out that, the allotment was made in the year 1981 while the writ petition was filed in 2013. He has pointed out that, the plea that, the private respondent was before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFA) for a substantial period of time is not material since, there was no impediment in the private respondent proceeding with the execution of the lease even during the period when, it was governed by the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, learned single judge erred in not dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay alone. In any event, learned single judge has erred in directing execution of the lease deed in favour of the private respondent and in the alternative to execute a lease deed for a suitable plot of land in the event, the original plot cannot be given to the respondent, at the original price. He has contended that, with the passage of time, the appellants are entitled to the market price, if nothing else.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondent has contended