Claims for land lease rights can be barred by delay, especially when previous agreements are accepted without protest.

1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have sought appropriate writ(s) commanding respondent No. 2 / Raipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RDA' ) herein to execute and register the lease deed in their favour in respect of the land admeasuring 42,000 sq. ft. of Scheme No. 32 Devendra Nagar of said Authority and also sought related consequential benefits.

2. Imperative facts necessary for adjudication of dispute raised in this writ petition are as under :
2.1 Respondent No. 2 - RDA took a decision to auction the land admeasuring 1,08,000 sq. feet, which was lying vacant in Scheme No. 32 of respondent No. 2 - RDA, known as Devendra Nagar Scheme. Accordingly, the auction sale was held on 24-5-1985. In the said auction, bid offered by the petitioners was accepted being highest. The petitioners, in accordance with terms and conditions of the auction, were directed to deposit - 1/3th of the bid amount and they deposited it.
2.2 One Prakashchand Lunked and another filed a writ petition numbered as Misc. Petition No. 1464/85 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh impugning the legality and validity of the action of respondent No. 2 / RDA in auctioning the land in question. The High Court of M. P. by its order dated 23-5-1985, held that auction shall not be finally confirmed until further orders.
2.3 The petitioners were required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 24,09,750/- as per Condition No. 11 of the terms and conditions of auction within sixty days of receipt of information of acceptance of bid but they did not deposit the said amount leading to the passing of the order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P - 5) by respondent No. 2 / RDA forfeiting the - 1/3th amount of bid i.e. Rs. 8,03,250/- deposited by the petitioners for violation of Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the auction.
2.4 The petitioners filed Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh questioning the above - stated order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P - 5) forfeiting the one fourth amount Rs. 8,03,250/- by respondent No. 2 / RDA.
2.5 The petitioners, apart from filing writ petition questioning the order forfeiting one fourth amount deposited by them, also made representations to respondent No. 2 / RDA on 23-8-1988 (Annexure P - 6) and 5-6-1995 (Annexure P - 7) stating inter alia that order forfeiting one fourth amount is violative of the principles of natural justice as they have not been afforded opportunity of hearing before forfeiting the said amount and, as such, the order dated 10-9-1985 be revoked.
2.6 The respondent No. 2 / Raipur Development Authority, by memo dated 29-8-1995 (Annexure P - 8) informed the petitioners with reference to their representation that their case can be considered sympathetically, if the decision with regard to the petition preferred by them and the decision relating to other writ petition preferred by Prakashchand Lunkad is informed to the authority / respondent No. 2 and documents in support thereof is produced.
2.7 By memo dated 31-10-1995, respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners that if the writ petition filed by them is withdrawn from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, then the adjustment of the amount forfeited and allotment of the land will be considered sympathetically and in pursuane of application dated 12-2-1996 filed by the petitione