Back
D. N. PATEL, JYOTI SINGH
Mohd Suleman – Appellant
Versus
NDMC – Respondent
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, CJ. - CM aPPL. 3051/2022 (Exemption) & CM aPPL. 3052/2022 (Exemption to file lengthy list of dates)
allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
applications stand disposed of.
LPa 48/2022
1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 07.12.2021, passed by the Learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P. (C) 13910/2021, the appellant (Original Petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the appellant is that he had constructed a shop in Meena Bazar, opposite Jama Masjid, Delhi in the year 1971 and had paid damages to DDa upto the year 1975. Between the period from 1975 to 1976, a demolition drive was conducted, during which the shop of the appellant was demolished but he was not allotted any alternative shop. The contention of the appellant is that on 11.10.1977, DDa framed a policy for allotment of alternative place or shops to Motia Khan Steel Merchants, who were evicted from Motia Khan area as their shops were demolished during the same demolition drive.
4. Learned counsel for the
The delay of 46 years in approaching the court without a satisfactory explanation constitutes delay and laches, barring the appellant's writ petition seeking an alternative shop.
Delays exceeding several decades in seeking legal remedies, without sufficient justification, bar petitions under the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely judicial recourse....
Gross delay and laches in approaching the court of law can impact the merit of a petition and influence the court's decision.
A petition seeking to enforce a delayed request is barred by delay and laches, which undermine its merit and validity.
Stale claims cannot be revived through representations; timely action is essential in legal proceedings.
Timely legal recourse is essential; negligence in asserting rights can bar relief, and possession rights depend on actual possession being taken.
Inordinate delay in seeking relief can bar a petition under Article 226, emphasizing the principle of laches and the need for timely action by litigants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and inaction on the part of the petitioner can disentitle them from the relief sought, especially when no right had accrued in their fav....
The principle of delay and laches precludes a litigant from being entertained for judicial relief when there is excessive delay without adequate justification, impacting the rights of other parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
