fy- ^- R }; '.[1 ifi! H!GH COURTOF JUDIGATURE CHHArr!SQARH:BILASPUR SSNGLE BENCH : HON'Bt-E SHR! S.R. NAYAK, CJ , WRIT PET!T!ON N0.6020 OF 2Q05 PET!T!ONERS : 1. HiraRam ChervaS/o Bachhu C-hsros, Agsd about 35 ysars, R/o Viiiage. iakhanpur, Ta'nsii: Surajpur.District ??..—,, .;^._ /f^f^\ OufyuJS V-^^ Smt. Shanti BaiW/o Ramprasad Chep/a, Aged about 45 years, Wo Viiiage Lakhanpur Tahsii: Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) Kisuh S»'oPhenku P-anika, Aged about 25 years; Viitaae Lakhap.pur, Tahsi!; Surajpur, Distrret: Surgujai(CG). Gula! S/o Bachhu Cherva ,&gacj about 6t) ysars, Viliags Lakhanpur, Ta'nsii: Surajpur, DistrictSugjii!a(CG). 2. 3. Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. ThsState of Chhattisgarh Throygh:TheSecretary, Dgpartment of Revenue, DK-S Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Coltector, Surguja Dsstrict Surguja (CG) ^ TheSecreSary, C.G. Resham Pariyqana & Swayatta Samuh, Karkuti (Lakhanpuri District Surguja (CG) Present: Mr.F.S.Kharelearhedcounseiforthepetitioriers, j ' ivir. Sanjay S.ngrawai; ieamed ©,A.,fortheState 6fC.G.!| (Passed on 9th of.january, 2006) !n th.is u'rit petition, the petitioners ha'/s impugnsd the Qrder ofths C&ycsctQr. Surcsuist. the socond fesDOhdsnt h©r9ih.dsted 2Q/OS/1999 [ .. •:. - granting ten hectares of land compnsed in KhaSrafNns. 113 and 91 sf Karkoti (Lakhanpur) v'Uage, Patu'ari Halka No.18, whichia"'4 isherein^ftw shortiv fsfoff^ to ss "ths schsdulo Isind",, 'in fsvQUF of Chhs^isgsrh Rsshar" Pariyojana & Swaygtfa Sarnuh, ffis thir'dl rsspond&nt hsi[ein, under the Reyar>us Book Circu!ar. It is 1t©case "f the Detitio'i'"'? *Rat ', is* iiss l'!|!i):l. l;i!"s-r n SillSB QSa - 2-- ^ i?- •i' thsy hsvs fc$©nin unsuthorizsd QCcuDSitiori ofth©schsduls fsnd frQm th& w^ar ^93$ 2?id thQ OoyQmmspt snd QQysmmsrsts! suthoritiss novsr objectsd to their unauthorizsd possession at any point of time and therefors, ths schedute !and ought not to havs bssn grantsd i" favour of ths thirdrespQndent. • (2} I heard ths Isarned counse! for the parties. -Shri Sanjay S. Aarsws!. tesm'sd Oovt. AcivQC3t9. 2t ths thrssholci. corstoridsc! thst this wrft ng^ort 13 tjgi^ig: t^ bs dlsmissod in ^/??j/?ff on ths Qfound of dslsy sp.d 'achss on!y bscsuss the writ petitio" was fited after a !apss QfSyssrsand mors fror" ths date of impugnsd oi'dsr and no sxpianstio" was offsred for the inordinate de'ay. He ateo contendsd that thsrs is no meriti" the cass. (3) Thsre is no necsssity for me to appreciate the above grievance of ths pstitioners brought before the Court i" any dstai!. !t is, bscause, this writ petition, in my considsred op'nion, is Hab10 to be dismissed in SmSne so!e!y on the ground ofds'ay and 'achss bssidos other grounds. ^ (4) AithQugh the power ofths High C-ourts undsr Article 228 of the Const'tution is diScretJQnary and no !j""ts can bs p'acsd upQn that diseretion, that powe!||®stbeexercised a'ong recognized tines andinet arbitrari'y and subject to certain self-'iT'ppssd-limitations. Therefore, the appiication for writ and/or order may be refused by the High CouFt upon a considerat'Qn Qfesrtsin circumstancesas dissntifing ths appSicantto relief 9^n though h©rnsy hsys isgsi nghtwhich hss be&n iRfflnQsd. OhQ ofths circumstancss to refuse rs!ief to a" appticanf js that the conduct of ths applicant is such that he does not dsssrve the discretiona'y rem°dy because h6 is guiKy of 'achss or undus ds'ay Qr^hat hs f'as not CQm®W'VP- ctean hands. Though there is no spscsfic psnod of iimitetioh.the High -^F" A"t Coutt msv rs^iso to 9x©rclsA ths sxtrsord'p.srv discrfltiQ.n2.1'y Dowsr CQnfsrrsd UDOH 't under Af^cio 22S of ths OoRstitutiQ" whof^the D9t!ti! te /^Mfltv /^f !?»?shd<? nr finHft^ ^^!av fr>r tA/hi^h f'hAro nn <s?i+i<sfa/»fAFv ^jl^itiihjr •>^> i'wt^fii'w •wfi •w* i •*<«*»<ui •ul-WtUty, tvi tt»III»/>l hl l«-r«•-r fST i i S^ i^-^i^is^i ^ii^/^^ifi ^ th<s fa?l^s ?>n/^ fkirrkt!mc+an/td<s nf fha ' /l^c;a /'•l&arlv v/^^it^i ii^uvt i. ^ii,i,w^ ft i« i^Win^ »fi>>»tviiv»-rr»/»wi.i»»^>^ ^i ^i i-v i^^^S^ ^i-^^i i^ iustt^ ths fschss or unduQ dslsy. ths DstitiQnsrs. ths citizsns or tf othorwiss. wou!d not b©sntitiod to rs'isf. This Dosition is y^ii sstSfod bv the judgmQrits of the Supreme Court in umptee" number of cases and to cite a few are the decistons in State of Hary-ana Vs.Bhajania!1, Stet&ofOrissays.ArunKusnarPatriaik' Stats of ?.?ii.%oreVs. Kangan, V.K., u'agadamBika PraSap Singh, Raja Vs, e.B.ft,4, Durga Prasad Vs. Ghlef CorrtroHer, !i"po?t S Export5, Khub Ghand Vs; Stete srf Rajasthan6, Chandra Bhushan Vs. Dy. Director of ConsoiidaSon, U.P., gabu SSngh Vs. Uiiion of Sndia, Ashok Kumar Vs. Coi'iector. Ramesh Kuniar Vs. nuiiisai y»; Technoioysca! instltufeofTextiSe11', Sfate of S4.P. Vs. Nand Lain, Mirza !V!ajid Hussain Vs. Stete of Rfl.P. , Chandigarh Adminisfrafion Vs. Jagjit Singh13, Larsen S Toijbro Ltd., State ofGyjrat , ^sheed Vs. Directorof Mlries and Seoiogy15, Sfate of Orissa Vs. Dbobei Sethi16, ""luiitcipa! Corporatipn of Orsatsf BombsyTyr&s Vs. BoiTibsy SntsnialiGnsI Lfei. , ?v!Iunicipai OounciS Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Myder Beig18, Stefe ofMaharashtra Vs. Dlgambar". A" that fhe High C-ourt has tosse is whathsr the laches on the part of the pstitiofisr sra such to dlssntitle him to rslisf cislmed by hlm. Ths d@|ay, howe'.'sr, isnota" abso!uts bar whers the dslay fe properiyexplsinsdand to the satisfactio" of the C-ourt or where the de'ay has been caused by ths party raising the ground of delay. As regards the 'apss of 1. (1992) Suw. (1) SCC 335:AIR 1992SC 604 3. AIR 1975 SC 2190: (1976) 2 SCC 8S5 5. AIR 1970 SC7S9:( 1969)1 SCC 185 7,(1%7)2SCR286;AIR1S67SC1272 : 9. AIR 1980 SC 112: (1980) 1SCC 180 11.AIR 1987 SC 251: {1986)4 SGC 566 1 13.(1M511 SGC645:AIR 1995SC705 15.(1S95) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1995 SC 1739 17.(1998)4SCC 100;AIR1M8SC1629 : 19.{1995) 4 SCC683: AIR 19S5 SC 1SS1. 2. AIR 1976 83 l639:(1976) 3SCG579 4. AIR 1975 SC 1816: (1975) 4SCC 578 6.1 AIR •1967 SC •1074:19S7(1):SCRi120 8: AIR1979 SC 3.713: (1981V3 SCC-628 10. AIR 1981 SC 1200: (1381) 2 SCC26& 12- (1995) 2 SCC 422: AIR 1M5 SR,224g 14. (1998) 4 SCC3S7: AIR^tMB SC 16D& 16.(ig35)5SGC583 I i 1S.;r2000S2SCC4S:AIR2000/S@67-l i • -^ l^,, m Eii ii^ !1::1 t j'msth^woy!d he;epr!s'ctereri ascQnstifuting dsiay.tte pTQpsryiew isthat ; RQ^hsrd: sihd fast'nils cs" bs !sid dow" irsiths mstter snd sseh 0239 shou!d fe&.daCK)^'a(^rd!ng to ifs circurnstan^esi'^ho^a^ p^ios®!SHg|en shflFt. !n 'other wofds, there may bs' ina)«AiS3b!e:dslay ^y^^b^^the^ap^iB^o'i^Sis ^fi!ed.. yyrth!" a..month or two of tte order.^.EaMnpiainsd^ of.On the othsr^hand, the Court may interfsrs in appro?>n^e cases evart;< vdiete fhs appticatitin is fitec! ^beyQid ;a scp'rejdsrab'0 t!"i&-gap. ;;%Th9 rea! tsst to determins dslay is tf'fatiths pet!§onoF^Quid [cB's^iQh's w"t CouFt tofore a paraiiel right is creat^d iandiAh&lapse fi1?*rSCis:SR|^athTbutab!e+o any iaches or neg'igence ofthis ipsUtioner. The tsst^is^nc't the 'ph^K:ai;'nj"ning of time. !t is trua ttTat ""here thecircymstencesjustjfyingthsfGanduct:ex!sts,fhe "legality which is manifsst eannot fe° susta'nsd o" ths se!0 giwu(tc! of lachss. (8} !ri the premsss ofthe abovs princjptes !etus took at the facts ofthiscas®. Th's writ petitio" was presented iri this Cburton 18/11/2005, aftera !apse ofmorethansb(yearsfrarnih®dateof1heimpugnedorder. ! ha'/e GaretuHy psrussd tho aysrm^nts ih ths w"t ^%tjt!0n. Not 3 word Qf expfanatfQn is offered fpr jnordinate dslay of niore than six years. On the other hand, in thewritpetition, quite euriously, it js claimed that there 's F*Q dslay i" fifing the; writ petitio". Lsarnsd coynsel Tor ttie pstitioner, howsvsr, in the courss of the submiss'sn.stated that ths p8f'tio"e.r hac! made a representatio" to the District Coltector, Surguja, the seconid respendent hersi", and he did not r^eivs any^response frQFnthe D!^t''i!iti 'CQl'sctor and thsrefbrs, ths pet!tiQ"e'' did not'fif" the wit petitien sarlisr: This stateraer't made in the course of ths argu'T'ent, that tQp, wjthoyt' ^suppGrt6fth6R!639iRg,jsnQtaG<^ptabl&tQi"i6fprrnp!"e 3nonsrsaso(!^! At-tf^ threshoid, st n^ds to bs hotic^ that the^^s ^^!dfe^ws'bnen m^e bythepetit!Q"eKto^fhesscs"cl!;resppn^"tiis^$t -l.s-.: ^ -l^'r ;':;:i 1S!; J;:a v: ; 1 5- ! II1 statutory i" character and 't is a" extra !egal rspressntatio". The judgmsnt Qf ths Suprsme Court in Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass Vs. UniQ" of India js an authority" to stats that pursuing an ill-conceiv'sd remedy is not apropsr exp'anation for de'ay. (S) Be that as it may, on merit a!so, J do not find any failure of justice. Ths second rsspondsnt granted ths schedute land to the third respondsnt as far back as 'on 20/08/199°. By this time, ths third respondent wh'ch is an institution must ha'/e utiiized the schedule !ahd. It wouid be tQtally inequitabte and unjust at this distence of tim6 to upset the settled matter. Secondiy, simpiy because, the petitioners were in unauthorized occupatfon ofthe schedyte !and before the grant in favour of the third rsspondsnt, that fact itseif wouid not in'/est any enforceabie right in ths petit'Qners sithsr to claim that tha schsdule !and shQU'd hs'/s baen granted to thsf" as a matter of ob'igat'on by ths State and State authorit'es or to eontest the va'idity of the grant made infavour ofthe third rA<;nAnr(An+ (7) Looking from any angle, ! am ofthe considersd opiniQ" that it is not a frt case where the Court shou'd step-in under Articte 226 of the Constitution and interfsre with ths impugnsd grant order made in fa'/our of the third respondsnt as far back as on 20/08/1999. The writ petjtion is, thersfore, disniisssd both o" the ground ofdefay a"dlaches as wei! as on msnt. howQver. wlth no ord$r as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice 20. E1S?7)UJSC3§5:A!R4S7?SCt979:{<S77)2SCC584