In CWP No.11029 of 2023 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Conduct of litigant in sleeping over his rights for a long period, would disentitle him to discretionary relief under Article 226 of Constitution: P&H HC dismisses petition on ground of delay & laches
Justices Augustine George Masih & Harpreet Singh Brar [24-05-2023]

 

Read Order:Ashutosh Jain Vs. The Assistant Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh And Others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, May 26, 2023: In a case where an inordinate delay of 42 years in approaching the Court had not been explained, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of an order cancelling the allotment of a house.

“...even the equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in the favour of a party who approaches the Court after an inexplicably long time”, the Division Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted.

The facts of the case were such that  Mohan Lal Jain was allotted the site of the house on lease hold basis for a period of 99 years. A show cause notice was issued to him for non-payment of instalments. The site was ordered to be cancelled by the Estate Officer and the appeal filed by the allottee against the said cancellation was decided by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh. The site was restored subject to conditions of payment .

A revision petition filed against the order of Chief Administrator was allowed and the site was restored subject to conditions of payment, failing which the site was ordered to be resumed. As orders of the Chief Administrator had not been complied with, eviction proceedings were launched under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. When the  original allottee died, an eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(i). A review petition was filed by son of the original allottee which was dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh.

In 1995, the District Judge issued a direction to conduct fresh proceedings for eviction of the occupants including Udey Jain. Thereafter an application was moved for transfer of site in question by the present petitioner, son and widow of deceased original allottee respectively, on the basis of Will. A notice was issued by the concerned SDM to the legal heirs of deceased Mohan Lal Jain, on which date the SDM (Central)-cum-Estate Officer  passed a detailed order of eviction.

The Bench opined that the petitioner had been extremely negligent in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The present writ petition suffered from laches and undue delay. The orders passed in the years 1978, 1980 & 1994 were challenged in the present writ petition in the year 2023. 

“Such an inordinate delay of 42 years has not been explained. Rather, we find that the petitioner has been grossly indolent and lethargic in invoking the remedies available to him under law in time. The conduct of the petitioner in sleeping over his rights for such a long period, would disentitle him to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench held.

Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Bench held.

In the absence of any compelling or extenuating circumstances which prevented the petitioner from approaching this Court for such a long time, the Bench had no other option but to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.