Delay in filing a writ petition, even if the petition is admitted and adjudicated upon on merits, can be a ground for dismissal of the petition in the exercise of the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

B. P. BERI, AG. C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 13th may, 1971 whereby he dismissed the appellants petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts which it is necessary to recall for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are these : The appellant claims to be the owner of a house No. 27 in Ward no. 6 in the city of Jodhpur. In the Rajasthan Gazette of June 30, 1965 a notification was published whereby the Government notified its intention to acquire land measuring 2074 Sq. yards which belonged to the appellant and whereon the house of the appellant stood. The land and the house were sought to be acquired under the scheme popularly known as the sojati Gate -- Girdi Kot scheme. The notice was served on the appellant under Section 52 (2) of the rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereafter called the Improvement Act)inviting objections from the appellant against the proceedings for the acquisition of the appellants property. Despite the objections filed by the appellant the State government took further steps to acquire the land and the house. A notice was issued on March 16, 1966 by the Collector for the determination of the compensation and on September 26, 1967 a compromise was effected between the mortgagor and the mortgagee of the property in dispute whereby the appellant as the mortgagee was authorised to receive the entire compensation. A writ petition was presented on July 25, 1968 by the appellant in which it was prayed that the provisions contained in Sections 52 and 53 of the Improvement act be declared void being discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 31 (2) of the Constitution of India; that a writ of prohibition be issued against the Additional collector restraining him from taking further proceedings in the matter of the determination of compensation and further the acquisition proceedings be quashed and the respondents be ordered to restore the possession of the petitioners property to them. No reply was filed to this writ petition by any one of the three respondents but the petition was contested. The learned single Judge repelled the contention of the appellant that Sections 52 and 53 of the Improvement Act were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and held that the acquisition proceedings were not discriminatory. The learned single Judge also expressed the opinion that the appellant was guilty of delay in coming to the Court and he on that ground as well was not entitled to any relief. In the result he dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied the appellant has come up in appeal.

( 3 ) MR. Hasti Mal learned counsel for the appellant urged that Sections 52 and 53 of the Improvement Act are inter-connected, the first relates to the acquisition and the second to the determination of compensation. When these two sections are compared with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called the Acquisition Act) they are discriminatory because the Improvement Act does not provide (a) solatium; (b) compensation for severance and (c) the method of calculation of compensation is also different. It was further urged that under the acquisition Act a part of the property could not be acquired without consent while no such provision existed in the Improvement Act. The learned counsel added that the forum of determination of compensation under the Acquisition Act was different from the one provided under the Improvement Act. He placed reliance on (1) P. Vajravelu Mudaliar (In W. P. No. 144 of 1963) 2. Most Rev. Dr. L. Mathias (In W. Ps. Nos. 227 and 228 of 1963) v. Spl. Dy. Collector for Land Acquisition, west Madras, AIR 1965 SC 1017 and Dy. Commr. and Collector, Kamrup v. Durganath Sarma, AIR 1968 SC 394.

( 4 ) ON the question of delay the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the petition having been admitte