Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To Writ Petitions But Party Guilty Of Delay & Laches Can't Be Given Relief: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to writ petitions, however, the principles governing the law of limitation holds some ground even in adjudication of petitions under Article 226 and thus, a party who is guilty of laches cannot be granted relief.While refusing to condone a delay of nineteen years in filing the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –“Although the Limitation Act is not strictly applicable to a writ petition, but the principles apply. It is also the settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. While exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be kept in mind by the High Court as a party who is guilty of delay and laches cannot be granted any relief.” Case BackgroundThe land belonging to the petitioner was acquired against a compensation amount to the tune of Rs.53,944/-. By a notice dated 16.11.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector, Kalahandi had asked the petitioner to come and receive the compensation amount but the petitioner did not turn up for the same.Therefore, another notice dated 02.01.2006 was issued to him directing him to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector on 09.01.2006 to receive the compensation amount, on the failure of which the amount was indicated to be deposited before the Revenue Authorities or in the Court.The petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction to declare the forceful acquisition of his land as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Rules made thereunder. He also sought a declaration for the possession and utilization of the land in his favour.It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions governing land acquisition under the Act of 1894 were not followed by the authorities while acquiring the land of the petitioner for which the acquisition is illegal.It was further submitted that the petitioner has received the compensation amount, but he is in possession of the land and has utilised it for the purpose of construction of fly ash bricks. He prayed for injuncting the authorities from taking possession of the land, who are now trying to utilize it for taking water pipeline and laying cables.Court's ObservationsPerusal of the relevant documents revealed that the land in question was acquired in the year 2005 for the proposed Vedanta Alumina Refinery Company and the petitioner received the compensation amount in the year 2006. “There is nothing on record that the impugned action of the authorities is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights of the petitioner. There is inordinate delay of nineteen years in filing the writ petition. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case,” the Court said.On the question of laches, reliance was placed upon the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014)–“As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep 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 scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not…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.”The Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, had further held that a Court is not expected to give indulgence to indolent persons who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or 'Rip Van Winkle' in sleeping over their rights and approaching the Court after a considerable delay.The Division Bench also referred to the remarks made by the top Court in the recent case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 318 wherein it was held that if it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself.Having regard for the aforesaid precedents, the Court noted that the petitioner received the compensation amount and kept the possession of his land. Only because the authorities are now invading upon his possession, he cannot ask for protection after so many years in as much as he should have approached the appropriate authority, if he was aggrieved by the compensation amount.“We find that not only there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court, but if the petitioner while receiving the compensation amount in the year 2006, as per...

Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To Writ Petitions But Party Guilty Of Delay & Laches Can't Be Given Relief: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To Writ Petitions But Party Guilty Of Delay & Laches Can't Be Given Relief: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers