Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

State of Himachal Pradesh feels aggrieved against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. on 23.12.2019 holding there being no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the District Collector, Solan, as also in the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla.

2. Heard learned Deputy Advocate General and considered the case file.

3. Proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against the respondent for not utilizing the land within the permissible period for the purpose for which the land was permitted to be purchased. The case set up by the petitioner before the District Collector was that respondent had purchased land in question with permission of the State Government in February, 2002 for construction of a hotel/resort whereas the respondent had constructed only three buildings and developed the parking facility but the hotel/ resort was not in operation at the spot. The respondent had not utilized the land within the period stipulated in the permission letter/in terms of provision of Section 118 of the Act for the purpose for which it was permitted to purchase the land.

3(i). On considering the case before it, the District Collector in his order dated 07.04.2015 returned factual findings that respondent had made constructions over the suit land; The construction map had been approved by the Competent Authority; Water and electricity connections had been installed; Public Works Department and Town and Country Planning Department had given their no objection certificates to the respondent during pendency of the proceedings under Section 118 for further construction activities of the project; The respondent had also projected and demonstrated certain internal difficulties faced by it for not utilizing the land within the permissible period. The District Collector found the endeavors of the respondent to complete the project, genuine. He was of the view that an opportunity had to be given to the respondent to prove his bonafide intentions. Accordingly, notice given to the respondent was discharged with the direction that resort be made operational within one year. Liberty was reserved to the concerned authority to re-institute the proceedings against the respondent on detection of new facts or events.

3(ii). The aforesaid order passed by the District Collector on 07.04.2015 was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 26.10.2018 and by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P on 23.12.2019.

4. More than 06 years after the passing of the impugned order, State has chosen to file this writ petition (i.e. on 17.04.2026). No reasons whatsoever are discernible from the writ petition as to what prevented the State from assailing the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) within a reasonable period. In Mrinmoy Maity versus Chhanda Koley and others²(2024)15 SCC 215, the Hon’ble Apex Court inter alia re-iterated that for filing of a writ petition though no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the case of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the applicant ought to be non-suited. The writ courts are not to indulge in permitting indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. Though there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. Relevant paras from the decision are as under:-

“11. For filing of a