Gujarat High Court
Kapuraji Shankarji Garoda vs State Of Gujarat on 18 June, 2024
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7876 of 2024
==========================================================
KAPURAJI SHANKARJI GARODA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR AAKASH GUPTA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 18/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Karan Patel for learned
advocate Mr.A.R.Kapadia on behalf of the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta on
behalf of the respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an
order passed by the learned SSRD dated 25.06.2014 under
Rule 108(6A) of the Land Revenue Rules.
3. At the outset, considering the fact that the order in
question was of the year 2014, learned advocate had been
called upon to satisfy the Court as regards the entertainability
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
of the matter after delay of approximately a decade. Learned
advocate would rely upon a document dated 05.10.2023 to
submit that since the papers of the original application
preferred before the Deputy Collector were not traceable,
therefore, the delay in question has arisen. No further
explanation is coming forth and whereas even perusal of the
petition also would not reveal any reasons for which this
Court should condone the delay.
4. It appears that the petitioners had applied for re-grant of
the land before the Deputy Collector and whereas vide order
dated 22.06.2009 the Deputy Collector had rejected the
application more particularly by observing that the petitioners
have to establish before a competent Court as being legal
heirs of the original grantee Harijan Kapura Bechara. The said
order had in a challenge by the petitioners not interfered with
by the Collector even as the Collector had held that the land
stood vested in the State as far as back in the year 1955 and
the same had been reflected in entry no.43 certified on
14.08.1956. The said decision of the Collector dated
30.01.2011 had been challenged before the learned SSRD by
filing Revision Application No.37/2012 which came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
rejected vide order dated 25.06.2014.
4.1. As such insofar as the explanation tendered, the order of
the Deputy Collector had been sought for only in the year
2023 i.e. approximately nine years after the order was passed
by the learned Special Secretary.
4.2. Having regard to the same, this Court does not find any
reason whatsoever for condoning the delay in approaching
this Court more particularly the application having been
preferred after a decade as referred to hereinabove.
4.3. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State
of Orissa and Ors. vs. Lakshmi Narayan Das (Dead)
Through Legal Heirs, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
825. Paragraph nos.23 to 34 being relevant for the present
purpose, is being reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"23. Before applying the principles laid down by this
Court on delay and laches. We deem it appropriate to
refer the legal position.
24. In P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1975) 1 SCC 152, it was laid down that a person
aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his
head should approach the court at least within six
months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is
not that there is any period of limitation for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor
is it that there can never be a case where the Courts
cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a
certain length of time, but it should be a sound and
wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to
exercise their extraordinary powers under Article
226 in the case of persons who do not approach it
expeditiously for the relief.
25. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and
others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court has opined that
though there is no period of limitation provided for
filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition
should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said
case the respondents had filed the writ petition after
seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took
note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and
set aside the order passed by the High Court which
had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
26. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv
Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC
179, this Court, while considering the issue regarding
delay and laches observed that even if there is no
period prescribed for filing the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should
be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person,
who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be
refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone
who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.
27. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board and others v. T. T. Murali Babu,
(2014) 4 SCC 108, this Court opined as under:-
"13. First, we shall deal with the facet of delay.
In Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service,
Amravati and others, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court
referred to the principle that has been stated by
Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and
John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is as follows:-
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is
not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy,
either because the party has, by his conduct,
done that which might fairly be regarded as
equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his
conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not
waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a
situation in which it would not be reasonable to
place him if the remedy were afterwards to be
asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time
and delay are most material. But in every case, if
an argument against relief, which otherwise
would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that
delay of course not amounting to a bar by any
statute of limitations, the validity of that defence
must be tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances, always important
in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the
nature of the acts done during the interval,
which might affect either party and cause a
balance of justice or injustice in taking the one
course or the other, so far as relates to the
remedy."
15. In State of M. P. and others etc. etc. vs.
Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc., AIR 1987 SC
251, the Court observed that it is well settled
that power of the High Courtto issue an
appropriate writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution is discretionary and the High Court
in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily
assist the tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further
stated therein that if there is inordinate delay on
the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and
such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the
High Court may decline to intervene and grant
relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and
laches stating that resort to the extraordinary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated
stage is likely to cause confusion and public
inconvenience and bring in injustice.
16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should
not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the explanation offered and
the acceptability of the same. The court should
bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. 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 scrutinize whether the lis at a
belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it
noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not
be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster for the litigant
who knocks at the doors of the court. 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. ... ...
A court is not expected to give indulgence to
such indolent persons- who compete with
`Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van
Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay
does not deserve any indulgence and on the said
ground alone the writ court should have thrown
the petition overboard at the very threshold."
28. In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri
and others, (2015) 15 SCC 602, this Court considered
the issue regarding delay and laches while initiating
a dispute before the Court. It was opined that the
issue sought to be raised by the petitioners therein
was not required to be addressed on merits on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
account of delay and laches.The relevant paras
thereof are extracted below:-
"27. The grievance agitated by the respondent
did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for
doctrine of delay and laches had already visited
his claim like the chill of death which does not
spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea
and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to
avoid death and eventually proclaim "Deo gratias
- thanks to God".
28. Another aspect needs to be stated. A writ
court while deciding a writ petition is required to
remain alive to the nature of the claim and the
unexplained delay on the part of the writ
petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated
unless non-interference would cause grave
injustice. The present case, need less to
emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It
deserves to be thrown overboard at the very
threshold, for the writ petitioner had accepted
the order of dismissal for half a decade and
cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time
and forever remain in the realm of constant
present."
29. The aforesaid view was followed by this Court in
Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5
SCC 798.
30. Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Shree Lal
Meena, (2019) 4 SCC 479, considering the principle
of delay and laches, opined as under:-
"36. We may also find that the appellant
remained silent for years together and that this
Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in
Sheel Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance
Company Limited, (2011)12 SCC 197 would not
entitle stale claims to be raised on this behalf,
like that of the appellant. In fact the appellant
slept over the matter for almost a little over two
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
years even after the pronouncement of the
judgment.
37. Thus, the endeavour of the appellant, to
approach this Court seeking the relief, as prayed
for, is clearly a misadventure, which is liable to
be rejected, and the appeal is dismissed."
31. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others v. Shyam
Kishore Singh - (2020) 3 SCC 411, the issue
regarding the delay and laches was considered by
this Court while dismissing the petition filed
belatedly, seeking change in the date of birth in the
service record.
32. The issue of delay and laches was considered by
this Court in Union of India and others vs. N.
Murugesan and others, (2022) 2 SCC 25. Therein it
was observed that a neglect on the part of a party to
do an act which law requires must stand in his way
for getting the relief or remedy. The Court laid down
two essential factors i.e. first, the length of the delay
and second, the developments during the intervening
period. Delay in availing the remedy would amount to
waiver of such right. Relevant paras 20 to 22 of the
above mentioned case are extracted below:
"20. The principles governing delay, laches, and
acquiescence are overlapping and
interconnected on many occasions. However,
they have their distinct characters and distinct
elements. One can say that delay is the genus to
which laches and acquiescence are species.
Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a
species by name acquiescence. However, there
may be a case where acquiescence is involved,
but not laches. These principles are common law
principles, and perhaps one could identify that
these principles find place in various statutes
which restrict the period of limitation and create
non-consideration of condonation in certain
circumstances. They are bound to be applied by
way of practice requiring prudence of the court
than of a strict application of law. The underlying
principle governing these concepts would be one
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an
important issue to be taken note of by the court.
21. The word "laches" is derived from the French
language meaning "remissness and slackness". It
thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence
in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief
while causing prejudice to the other party. It is
neglect on the part of a party to do an act which
law requires while asserting a right, and
therefore, must stand in the way of the party
getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the
length of the delay and the nature of acts done
during the interval. As stated, it would also
involve acquiescence on the part of the party
approaching the court apart from the change in
position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would
be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a
remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his
acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By
his conduct, he has put the other party in a
particular position, and therefore, it would be
unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the
court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on
equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a
remedy."
33. Finally, in paras 37 and 38, it was observed as
under :
"37. We have already dealt with the principles of
law that may have a bearing on this case. ...
there was an unexplained and studied reluctance
to raise the issue ....
38. ....Hence, on the principle governing delay,
laches ... Respondent No. 1 ought not to have
been granted any relief by invoking Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.".
34. If the aforesaid principles of law are applied in
the facts of the case in hand from the table of list of
dates as available in para no. 12, it is evident that
there is huge delay on the part of the respondents to
avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7876/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
was finalised in the year 1962. As admitted in the
writ petition, objections were filed by the
respondents or their predecessors-in-interest before
that. Remedy, after publication of final record of
rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the 1958
Act, to be filed within one year. No remedy was
availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of
record of rights, application was filed before the
Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after
final record of rights is published. When no relief was
granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents
kept quite for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the
year 2003. It was dismissed as withdrawn in the year
2007. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008,
which is subject matter of dispute in the present
appeal. The aforesaid facts show that the writ
petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of
finalisation of record of rights, which was highly
belated. Hence, the respondents were no entitled to
any relief."
5. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court more particularly since no reasonable cause is made out
for condoning the delay, the present application stands
disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
