A writ petition under Article 226 is liable for dismissal if there is an unexplained inordinate delay (laches) and if the petitioner has failed to exhaust available efficacious alternative statutory remedies provided by the governing legislation.

Order

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2019 (Annex. 5) passed by respondent no.2-Tehsildar, Kanod, District Udaipur. By the said order, respondent no.2 invoking authority under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (“Act of 1956”) declared petitioner as an encroacher and therefore, passed an eviction order.

2. Challenging the said order, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent-Tehsildar issued notice dated 28.08.2019 (Annex. 1) wherein it was stated that petitioner is in possession of the said land for two consecutive years. However, the land in question is in petitioner’s possession for the last 47 years, thereby, rendering the said notice defective.

2.1 He further submits that proceedings initiated under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 are vitiated by malice and therefore, the eviction order dated 23.09.2019 (Annex. 5) deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

4. At the outset, this Court finds that order impugned is of 2019 whereas the present petition has been filed in 2026 and the writ petition is bereft of any explanation regarding inordinate delay of six years in approaching this Court. The law is well settled that unexplained delay and laches constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissal of the writ petition. Petitioner’s inability to explain the delay of six long years disentitles him to any discretionary equitable relief under Article 226.

4.1 Hon’ble Apex Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. , (2009) 1 SCC 768 held that delay in filing the writ petition is reasonable ground for refusing to grant relief under Article 226. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

“56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261] , Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969] ). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] , Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]).”

4.2 Also, Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 held that inordinate delay in filing the writ petition defeats