[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Anita Goswami @ Anita Kumari vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:7371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1519 of 2026
------
Anita Goswami @ Anita Kumari, aged about 49 years, wife of
Kaushal Kishor Goswami, resident of Ekta Nagar, Shivaji Chowk,
Booty More, Ward No.5 (RMC), P.O. Booty, P.S. Sadar, District
Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, through its
Administrator, having its office at RMC Building, Kutchery Road,
P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having
its office at RMC Building, Kutchery Road, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
For the RMC : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
------
02/ 17.03.2026
By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has
sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Direction upon the respondents to ensure
peaceful vacant possession of the land in
issue ad measuring 225 Sq. Ft. (15 ft x 15
ft) pertaining to M.S. Plot No.241, Ward
No.2, Ratu Road Junction, P.O.- GPO, P.S.
Kotwali, which was duly allotted to the
petitioner vide Letter No.2947 dated
23.12.2006 but in spite of payment of the
entire statutory amounts by the
petitioner, the respondents have not
taken any effort to ensure its peaceful and
physical possession to the petitioner,
though the same had been brought to the
knowledge of the respondents indicating
2026:JHHC:7371
the undue interference of anti social
elements.
(b) Direction upon the respondents to grant
adequate protection to the petitioner from
anti social elements, who create undue
hindrance and obstruction with threat to
life and liberty whenever the petitioner
intends to take possession of the
aforesaid piece of land duly allotted to her
under the Social Welfare Scheme of self
employment to women by the respondent
Authorities.
(c) For payment of adequate compensation to
the petitioner in view of the fact that the
respondent Authorities have received all
such statutory demands as raised by them
against the petitioner totaling to
Rs.65,715/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifteen), wayback in the
year 2006-2010 but the petitioner has
been left in lurch without any assistance
and the hard earned money of the
petitioner has been appropriated by the
respondents without ensuring peaceful
and physical possession of the allotted
land as aforesaid."
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. The petitioner applied for a small piece of land under a
Social Welfare Scheme from Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC)
and was allotted 225 sq. ft. of land at Ratu Road, Ranchi. After the
2026:JHHC:7371
allotment, she was asked to pay certain charges total of
Rs.24,750/- which she paid on time. However, when she tried to
take possession of the land and started construction, some anti-
social elements stopped her. She also paid an additional amount of
Rs.40,500/- for license renewal. The petitioner made several
complaints and representations to the Authorities asking for help in
getting peaceful possession of the land, but no action was taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite
of full compliance made by the petitioner, the respondents failed to
ensure delivery of peaceful physical possession of the allotted land.
He further submits that the petitioner was prevented by anti-social
elements, and the respondents took no effective steps to remove
such obstruction. He also submits that the petitioner made several
representations and complaints from 2007 to 2025 requesting
assistance for taking possession and protection, however the
respondents failed to act, showing gross negligence and inaction.
He further submits that the respondents, being State Authorities,
are under a legal obligation to ensure that the petitioner is put in
peaceful possession of the allotted land.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the
allotment made in favour of the petitioner was subject to terms and
conditions. He further submits that the petitioner cannot claim an
absolute right over the land. The alleged obstruction to possession
and construction was caused by anti-social elements, who are third
parties. He also submits that the petitioner has approached this
2026:JHHC:7371
Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as the cause of
action arose in 2006-2010. Such delay disentitles the petitioner
from any equitable relief under writ jurisdiction.
6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the
records, I find that the petitioner has approached this Court after
an inordinate and unexplained delay, as the petition has been
pursued much later, without any satisfactory explanation for such
prolonged lapse of time. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that she fulfilled all post-allotment conditions necessary for
obtaining possession. Mere payment of certain amounts does not
automatically confer an indefeasible or absolute right to claim
possession. Relief cannot be granted to a party who sleeps over her
rights and approaches the Court after unreasonable delay and
laches.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy
Maity v. Chhanda Koley reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551
has held that if it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay
and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that
sole ground itself, inasmuch as the Writ Courts are not to indulge in
permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his/ her own
wrong. Para-11 of the said judgment reads as hereunder:-
"11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt
that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed.
However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of
the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to
whether within a reasonable time same has been
invoked and even submitting of memorials would
2026:JHHC:7371
not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect
the cause of action which has had a natural death.
In such circumstances on the ground of delay and
latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or
the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found
that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and
latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the
petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as
the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting
such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own
wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver
of fundamental right but while exercising
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the
High Court will have to necessarily take into
consideration the delay and latches on the part of
the applicant in approaching a writ court. This
Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State
of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the
following effect:"
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, I find
that entertaining such delayed claims would set a bad precedent
and result in administrative uncertainty. This Court also finds that
the Writ Petition suffers from gross delay and latches and is thus
liable to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Civil Court or any other Forum, for claiming compensation for
breach of Contract.
9. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, this writ
petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
17th March, 2026
Prashant. Cp-2
Uploaded on 20.03.2026
