Somprakash Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 26757 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189375-DB
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28919 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Somprakash Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Chakraborty
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Narendra Kumar Tiwari,Pankaj Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri J.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking following relief:

"1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to ensure the restoration of an area of almost one bigha land (or whatsoever area may it be) in the Arazi No.1200/1 situated in Village Lakhanpur, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj, which was acquired in the year 1969 by the State Electricity Deptt. for installation of Shankergarh Sub-Station 33/11 KV and make payment of rent @ Rs.One lakh per month w.e.f. 1969 with interest of 24% therein."

3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition that so without any plausible explanation, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed outrightly.

4. On perusal of record, it transpires that as per petitioner's own averment the land in question was acquired by the State Electricity Department way back in year 1969 and neither the petitioner's grandfather nor father had even approached the competent Court for redressal of their grievances. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner at the very belated stage, more precisely, almost five decades after the acquisition of the land in question took place.

5. Be that as it may, the principles of law with regard to entertaining a writ petition filed with delay and laches are well settled. The issue has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Ghansu and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (7) ADJ 536 wherein referring to various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court it was opined that the writ petition is filed after inordinate delay, the litigant coming to the Court can be non-suited on that ground alone.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and different High Courts from time to time regarding delay and laches, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.10.2023

Manish Himwan