The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act. Rejecting the petitioner's delay explanation consistent with Mahavir, the Court held the claim was stale and barred by laches.
dismissal of the petition on grounds of laches.
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.
$~39
PRAKASH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Surat Singh with Ms.Meenakshi Rawat, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.P.C.Yadav, CGSC with Ms.Neha Gupta, Advocate for R1. Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B /LAC.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 07.01.2019
under Section 6 of the LAA, Award No.1343 of 1962 was passed. Between then and the filing of the present writ petition, the only event that is mentioned is the passing of the 2013 Act and nothing else.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J. JANUARY 07, 2019/ tr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the land acquisition proceedings belatedly challenged stand barred due to laches.
Whether the court can entertain a stale claim regarding compensation.
Whether a discretionary writ relief can be granted without explanation for inordinate delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶4
(2018) 3 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
Prakash and Ors.
Union of India and Ors.
S. MURALIDHAR
SANJEEV NARULA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
