Dismissed¶¶23

Amijul Miya and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Apr 2026FMA/6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ jurisdiction requires timely approach; writ petition (filed 2026) seeking enhancement/revision of compensation paid in 1986 dismissed; about 40-year delay unexplained; relief available under the statute under which compensation was paid; intra-court appeal FMA 6 of 2026 dismissed; Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; Amijul Miya & Ors. v. State of West Bengal; relies on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108; Single Judge order dated 16.02.2026 upheld, no interference.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no infirmity in the Hon'ble Single Judge's rejection of the petitioner's claim. ¶¶16

Amijul Miya and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the intra-court appeal should succeed, i.e., whether the Hon'ble Single Judge's order dated 16.02.2026 dismissing the writ petition (seeking enhancement/revision of compensation paid in 1986) on the ground of delay and laches called for interference.

¶¶12

Court's answer

The Court found no infirmity in the Hon'ble Single Judge's rejection of the petitioner's claim.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction is exercised having regard to a timely approach to the jurisdiction for relief; a writ petitioner cannot be permitted to arise from deep slumber and approach the writ court at his own sweet will.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The delay of about 40 years in approaching the writ court was unexplained, and the relief sought was of a kind which could have been availed of under the provisions of the statute under which the compensation was allegedly paid to the predecessor-in-interest.ratio¶¶15
Considering the delay and laches and the reasons recorded, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-court appeal (FMA 6 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026) before the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, against the order dated 16.02.2026 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed in 2026 by Amijul Miya & Ors. seeking enhancement/revision of compensation paid in 1986 to the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner. The Division Bench (Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas, JJ.) held that the extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction is exercised having regard to a timely approach, and that a writ petitioner cannot 'arise from deep slumber' and approach the writ court at his own sweet will. No reason was shown for the delay of about 40 years, and the relief sought was available under the provisions of the statute under which the compensation had been paid. Relying on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, on the doctrine of delay and laches, the Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge's rejection of the claim, found no reason to interfere, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

¶2

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶3

Ct. No.7 D/L 08.04.2026 (Naba) 08

¶4

FMA 6 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026

¶5

Amijul Miya & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Ankur Barman

¶7

...for the Appellants

¶8

Mr. Momenur Rahaman, Mr. Sandip Guha Roy

¶9

...for the State Respondents

¶10

Heard the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned State advocate.

¶11

A writ petition is filed in the year 2026 seeking enhancement/revision of a compensation allegedly paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner. The compensation was paid in the year 1986.

¶12

Finding such an approach to the writ court to be barred by the principles of delay and laches, the Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 16.02.2026, is under appeal in the present intra-court appeal.

¶13

The learned advocate for the writ petitioner has not been able to show any reason being stated in the writ petition so as to explain this delay of about 40 years in approaching the

¶14

¶15

writ court, that also for a relief which could have been availed of under the provisions of the statute under which the compensation was allegedly paid to predecessor-in-interest.

¶16

We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

¶17

It is by now settled that the extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction is exercised having regard to a timely approach to the jurisdiction for relief. The writ petitioner cannot be permitted to arise from deep slumber and approach the writ court at his own sweet will.

¶18

We consider it apposite to quote from Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 wherein the Apex Court stated:

¶19

“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep

¶20

¶21

itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.”

¶22

Considering the delay and laches and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge.

¶23

The appeal is dismissed.

¶24

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶25

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)

Amijul Miya and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amijul Miya and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Annapurna Das @ Annyapurna Das

Ashok Kumar Ray@Ashok Roy Vs Amit Agarwal and Ors.

Ramesh Mahato Vs Babita Kumari

Madhu Agarwal Vs Joint Commissionerof Revenue, State Tax, Jalpaiguri Circle and Ors.

Debnath Bose Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Uttam Gharai Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.