The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the notifications dated March 17, 2009 and November 9, 2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated May 23, 2014 passed in Writ-C No. 3217 of 2010, filed by petitioner’s husband, seeks to address that the acquisition in question having been quashed by this Court in the aforesaid case, the petitioner deserves to be granted the same relief. In order to explain the delay in filing the writ petition, he submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the acquisition. The moment she came to know, the present petition was filed as the State was seeking to take possession of the land.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.

4. As to how a petition, filed after huge delay, has to be dealt with has been considered by the Courts on number of occasions and the opinion expressed is that these petitions are required to be dismissed at the threshold.

5. In New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the Supreme Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the Court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.

6. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others 2013 (6) SLR 629, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches observed that even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.

7. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T. T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under:-

"13. First, we shall deal with the facet of delay. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) LR5 PC 221, which is as follows: (Balwant Regular Motor Service case, AIR 1969 SC 329, AIR pp. 335-36, para 11)

"11. … ‘Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in, either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy’ (Lindsay Petroleum Co. case, (1874) LR 5 PC 221, PC pp. 239-40)"

15. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal,(1986) 4 SCC 566 : AIR 1987 S