The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking physical possession of an allotted MIG house, finding that the petitioner's claim was barred by an inordinate delay of 24 years and the principle 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1459 of 2020
Nirmala Singh ….. Petitioner
Versus
….. Respondents
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy For Respondent Nos.1-3: Mr. Sachin Kumar For Respondent No.4: None -----
10/22.03.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to hand over the vacant physical possession of MIG House No. R- 47, situated at Hirapur, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred as „the said house‟) to the petitioner which was allotted in her favour, but has not been handed over to her as yet. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to identify the persons who are responsible for not handing over vacant physical possession of the said house to the petitioner and to appropriately punish them. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to pay interest on the amount paid by her from the date of deposit of the same till the date of actual handing over of possession of the said house.
2
with her application form, she was to deposit Rs.43,207/- before executing the agreement. The respondent No.2 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner on 20.07.1996 after depositing Rs.43,207/- on 09.04.1996 by way of Bank Draft. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Dhanbad Division issued a common letter addressing the concerned Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad on 24.09.1996 with a copy to the petitioner directing them to ensure handing over physical and legal possession of the said house to the petitioner by taking signature of the allottee as well as of the officer handing over the possession of the said house in the register being maintained in the office of the said authority. The said direction was never followed and no effort was made to ensure as to whether the petitioner had put her signature in the register showing handing over of possession of the said house.
3
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad against the respondent No.4 and her husband, namely, Shyam Pd. Singh and at the same time, she also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3763 of 2009 before this Court for directing the officers of the Jharkhand State Housing Board to hand over physical possession of the said house. In the meantime, the petitioner was assured by the officers of the Board that in the event of withdrawal of the said writ petition, they would hand over possession of the said premises to her as due to pendency of the said writ petition, they could not take any step on their own. Under such assurance of the officers of the Board, the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.11.2016.
4
the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that the petitioner had made false statement regarding handing over the possession, otherwise, there was no occasion for her to keep mum for more than 10 years. After execution of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the petitioner never contacted the authorities of the Board for handing over the possession of the said house which was only a formality. The petitioner did not pay the EMIs, rather entire payments were made by the respondent No.4. The petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent No.4 on 29.05.1998 and on the basis of the same, the respondent No.4 came in possession of the said house. The petitioner approached the Board for handing over possession after waiting for such a long period. If possession was not handed over to the petitioner, she should have approached the Board within a reasonable time. The petitioner had filed Complaint Case No. 1986 of 2009 against the respondent No.4 and her husband alleging illegal possession of the said house by creating forged document, however, they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them in the said case.
5
claims that the possession of the said house was never given to her, rather the respondent No.4 conspired with the concerned officials of the respondent-Board and on the basis of a manufactured power of attorney, the possession of the said house was given to her.
6
her in the year 1996 i.e. after about 24 years and thus the same has certainly
been filed after an inordinate delay.
in (2008) 14 SCC 295 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.”
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/A.F.R
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant relief after an inordinate delay of 24 years by enforcing extraordinary remedies.
Whether the petitioner's inaction and delay for more than two decades constitute laches warranting the dismissal of the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Dugal KumarApplied¶39
Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Dugal Kumar reported in (2008) 14 SCC 295 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nirmala Singh
The Jharkhand State Housing Board Limited
Smt. Madhuri Devi
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
