[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Cw / 15563U / 2026State Of Rajasthan vs Shanker Lal (2026:Rj-Jd:20359) on 29 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:20359]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8497/2026

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Gadhi, District- Banswara
(Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Legal representative of Late Shri Shanker Lal :

1/1. Amriti Devi, W/o Late Shri Shanker Lal, Age - Major,
Resident of Bori, Tehsil - Gadhi, District- Banswara (Rajasthan).

1/2. Yogesh, S/o Late Shri Shanker Lal, Age - Major, Resident of
Bori, Tehsil - Gadhi, District- Banswara (Rajasthan).

1/3. Hamendra, S/o Late Shri Shanker Lal, Age - Major, Resident
of Bori, Tehsil - Gadhi, District- Banswara (Rajasthan).

1/4. Vipin, S/o Late Shri Shanker Lal, Age - Major, Resident of
Bori, Tehsil - Gadhi, District- Banswara (Rajasthan).
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC
For Respondent(s)         :     ----



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

29/04/2026

1. Application for taking legal representative of sole respondent

on record, is allowed.

2. Legal representatives of respondent-Shanker Lal, as shown

in para No. 3 of the application, are ordered to be taken on record.

3. Amended cause title, stated to have been filed already, be

taken on record.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8497/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel for petitioner, heard on

merits.

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:55:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20359] (2 of 6) [CW-8497/2026]

2. Present writ petition is filed challenging validity and propriety

of order dated 09.11.2000 passed by learned Board of Revenue

("BOR") in Appeal No. LR/47/1996, District Banswara titled as

Shanker Lal vs. State of Rajasthan. By said order, learned BOR

quashed and set aside judgment dated 01.05.1995 passed by

learned District Collector, Banswara, as well as judgment dated

25.01.1996 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority ("RAA"), and

upheld the allotment made in favour of the respondents in the

year 1964.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that learned District

Collector, Banswara, while passing order dated 01.05.1995,

recorded a categorical finding that allotment made in favour of

petitioner was vitiated, as a close family member of petitioner

was a member of the then Allotment Committee. It is further

submitted that such irregularities and illegalities can be set right

even after a lapse of thirty years. Said finding was rightly upheld

by learned RAA vide judgment dated 25.01.1996.

4. It is contended that learned BOR has committed an error of

law while setting aside the said judgments merely on the ground

of delay in cancelling the allotment order.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

6. This Court finds that impugned order challenged in present

writ petition was passed on 09.11.2000, whereas the present writ

petition is filed after a lapse of more than five years. A perusal of

writ petition shows that no reason even for the namesake has

been mentioned explaining delay and laches on the part of

petitioner - State to challenge the impugned order.

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:55:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20359] (3 of 6) [CW-8497/2026]

6.1 Law with regard to delay and laches is no more res integra.

It is well-settled that even if no period of limitation is provided for

filing a writ petition, the same is required to be filed within a

reasonable time; excessive or inordinate delay in filing the same

deprives the petitioner of the right to seek any relief from the

Court.

6.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of authoritative

pronouncements, has consistently held that a writ in the nature

of certiorari, against an order passed by a Civil Court, Revenue

Court, or any quasi-judicial authority, is required to be filed within

a reasonable period, which has ordinarily been construed to be up

to ninety days.

6.3 Reliance may appropriately be placed upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda

Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215, wherein the Hon'ble Court opined

as follows:

"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:55:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20359] (4 of 6) [CW-8497/2026]

the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

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 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 laches 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 laches, 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 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 laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court."

6.4 This Hon'ble High Court, in Noor Khan v. Board of

Revenue, 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 8037, held that excessive or

inordinate delay in filing the writ petition disentitles the petitioner

to seek any relief from the court. Relevant paragraph is

reproduced herein below:

"10. Indisputably, assailing the legality of order dated 24.8.93 passed by the Board of Revenue, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 6 years. It is pertinent to note that in the petition filed, the order impugned dated 24.8.93 has been referred to as dated '24.8.98' and the petitioner has furnished the explanation of delay for the period February, 1999 to

(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:55:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20359] (5 of 6) [CW-8497/2026]

31.8.1999 and therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner was well aware that inordinate delay in filing the petition is required to be explained satisfactorily. However, no explanation whatsoever is set out in the petition for inordinate delay of six years in filing the petition. In the considered opinion of this court, if aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner was required to approach this court with utmost expedition and thus, the present writ petition which badly suffers from vice of delay and laches, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. However, taking into consideration the fact that writ petition already stands admitted and is pending consideration for all these years, in the interest of justice, this court considers it appropriate to examine the case set out by the petitioner on merits."

6.5 In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground

of delay and laches alone.

7. Even on merits of the case, this Court finds that allotment

order in favour of respondent was passed way back in the year

1964 and the same was cancelled after thirty-one years vide order

dated 01.05.1995. Learned BOR, while considering the provisions

of Rule 14(4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for

Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, observed that khatedari rights

had accrued in favour of the respondent within ten years from the

date of initial allotment. Consequently, initiation of proceedings for

cancellation of allotment after a delay of thirty years was held to