Writ petition challenging land ceiling notification dismissed due to five-year laches and lack of merit regarding Section 6 rights.
Writ petition dismissed on account of laches and lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33249 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ram Sewak and others Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adesh Pal, Braj Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.
2
held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union of India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993 , it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra) . The aforesaid authorities have also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423 . This has been followed in Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors., 2009(1) SCC 297 . In S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009(2) SCC 479 , Court held that it is well settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioners approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on account of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to other candidates who have got the benefit. In Yunus Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(3) SCC 281 the Court referred to the observations of Sir Barnesdelay Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc. (1874) 5 PC 239 and held as under:
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his
3
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, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. … Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 PS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petition can be entertained despite delay of almost five years.
Whether Section 6 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 confers actionable right to challenge Section 4 Notification.
Whether Section 6 obligation requires Government to cancel existing Notification upon request.
Ram Sewak and others
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
