Unexplained Delay of Over 10 Years Fatal to Writ Petition, Even if Allotment Cancellation Not Formally Served: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal on Laches in LPA 681/2025 - 2025-05-07

High Court Dismisses Appeal in Decades-Old Land Auction Case, Cites Inordinate Delay

Chand igarh: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana recently dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 681/2025) filed by Deep Chand , upholding a Single Judge's order that had rejected his writ petition due to an unexplained delay of over ten years in approaching the court regarding a 2008 property auction. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Arun Palli and Justice Jagmohan Bansal , emphasized the doctrine of delay and laches, stating that a right not exercised for a long time becomes non-existent.

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from a property auction held on September 30, 2008, where the appellant, Deep Chand , was the highest bidder for a plot offered by the Rehabilitation Department through Tehsildar Sales-Karnal. He deposited a part of the bid amount on the same day. However, the possession was allegedly not handed over due to the presence of illegal occupants. Subsequently, his allotment was reportedly cancelled on July 31, 2009, due to non-payment of further installments.

After nearly 14 years, Mr. Chand submitted a representation on January 5, 2023, and then filed a writ petition (CWP-14776-2023) seeking directions for his name to be entered in revenue records as the owner and for possession of the property. The Learned Single Judge dismissed this writ petition on August 8, 2023, primarily on the grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay, also noting the 2009 cancellation of allotment.

Appellant's Contentions

In the LPA, counsel for Mr. Chand argued that the Single Judge had erred. It was contended that: * The appellant was admittedly the highest bidder. * Possession could not be delivered by the State due to illegal occupants, and a warrant for possession issued in January 2009 was not executed effectively. * Crucially, the cancellation of allotment on July 31, 2009, was never communicated to the appellant, nor was he served a show-cause notice or given an opportunity of hearing before such cancellation. This order, he claimed, only came to light during the writ court proceedings. * Given the State's own delay in confirming the sale and delivering possession, dismissing the writ petition for delay on his part was unjustified.

High Court's Reasoning: The Peril of Inordinate Delay

The Division Bench meticulously examined the record and arguments. The Court observed, "It is a matter of record that land in question was auctioned way back in the year 2008 in favour of appellant. It is also a matter of record that auction was never finalized at any point of time. There is no indeed no explanation coming forth on the part of appellant-writ petitioner in respect to delay of over 10 years in initiating any proceedings."

The Court invoked the well-settled legal principle of delay and laches, citing several Supreme Court judgments, including: * State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 * Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 * U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jaswant Singh and another (2006) 11 SCC 464 , where it was held that "What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days, etc. as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case." * New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and Others (2007) 9 SCC 278

The judgment highlighted, "A right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit the litigants who approach the court-appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay."

No Relief Despite Claims of Unfair Procedure and Personal Hardship

The appellant's counsel, when questioned about the substantial delay, submitted that the appellant had lost both his sons and was single-handedly looking after his grandchildren. He also mentioned that the appellant, being a landless person belonging to a Scheduled Caste, had been treated unfairly.

However, the Court noted, "it is to be noted that apart from this ground of appellant having lost his sons not being raised in the writ petition, even at this stage, appellant has not given any details in this respect inasmuch as even the date of death of his sons is not available on record."

Regarding the argument that the 2009 cancellation order was passed without notice and behind his back, the Court, while acknowledging this, found no grounds to grant liberty to challenge it at this belated stage, especially since the fact of cancellation became known during the writ proceedings and the delay remained largely unexplained. "Learned counsel for appellant upon pointed query even at the time of arguments, is unable to come forth with an explanation, leave alone a reasonable one to explain the delay in question," the Bench recorded.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the appeal was "devoid of any merit," the High Court dismissed it, thereby affirming the Single Judge's decision. All pending applications were also disposed of. The judgment, dated January 9, 2024 (as per record attestation), underscores the critical importance of approaching courts within a reasonable time frame, as unexplained delays can prove fatal to even otherwise arguable claims.