JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-Order dated February 10, 2012 passed by the Secretary, Department of Industrial Development, in terms of directions issued by this Court vide order dated September 20, 2010 passed in Writ-C No. 55926 of 2010, titled as Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.

2. In terms of aforesaid directions, application filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was to be decided. The writ petition challenging the acquisition of land otherwise was dismissed.

3. After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the present writ petition, on account of huge delay and laches. The impugned order was passed by the Secretary of the Department concerned on February 10, 2012 and the writ petition has been filed more than a decade thereafter. As to how the 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.

4. In P.S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, wherein it has been laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for the relief.

5. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the 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 v. 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 State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is as follows :

''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 i