Delay in asserting rights can extinguish enforceable claims, especially when cancellation was not contested in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, C.J.

1. Dead wood is sought to be resuscitated by filing a writ petition, when the cause of action, which accrued as far back as on 19^th December, 2014, is challenged in the instant writ appeal.

2. Pursuant to the scheme floated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for providing the housing to its policyholders, an invitation was made and undeniably, the appellant was selected in the draw of lots. He was requisitioned to deposit a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh and the balance consideration money was to be paid in terms of the said scheme or the tender to be floated in this regard. But before the same matured, a communication was made to the appellant that an objection is raised by the Government that the land over which such housing infrastructure is to be made is actually a forest land and unless a clearance and/or permission is granted, no construction shall be allowed as there is a clear prohibition imposed in the statutory law.

2.1. The appellant was provided an option either to continue with his application or may seek for refund of the amount paid in terms of the letter of allotment. Admittedly, the appellant continued with such allotment and declined to take back the amount so paid. By a subsequent letter dated 19^th December, 2014, the LIC cancelled the allotment and indicated that the application fee deposited by the appellant shall be refunded by NEFT to the bank account provided the said details of the bank account is given along with the cancelled cheque.

2.2. The appellant remained silent, except a letter was subsequently issued raising a concern, but did not approach the Court assailing the said letter of cancellation dated 19^th December, 2014. The silence can be reasonably gathered from the documents enclosed with the writ petition, that only in the year 2025, the writ petition is filed for the reliefs other than challenging the order of cancellation which are adumbrated hereinafter.

2.3. It is revealed from the record that the LIC challenged the decision of the Government in treating the land over which such housing infrastructure was undertaken to be on a forest land before this Court and the said writ petition remained pending for a pretty long period. Ultimately, the Government communicated to the Court that the land over which the said housing colony or infrastructure is constructed by the LIC does not come within the purview of a forest land. Since the said decision was taken in the year 2024, the appellant perceived the resurrection of the cause of action for allotment of flat as an integral part thereof and filed the instant writ petition, which is dismissed by the learned single Judge.

2.4. According to the counsel appearing for the appellant, the single Bench ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground enumerated therein. The single Bench proceeded to dismiss the said application on the premise that the moment the allotment is cancelled by the LIC, it does not create any right of revival thereof. It further held that since there was no concluded contract, no inchoate or a legally enforceable right accrued to the appellant. Since the right of the appellant after the cancellation is made does not appear to the single Bench enforceable in law, the writ petition came to be dismissed.

2.5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court ought not to have taken such a stand, as the right to the order of cancellation having been founded upon a conscious decision of the Government, which is immuned from being challenged by a common man and the moment the Government has communicated that the land does not fall within the forest land, the ground for cancellation automatically eclipsed and cannot remain