[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 7484U / 2026State Of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:20534) on 29 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20534]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4094/2026
State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Bali, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Bastimal, R/o Bali Tehsil Bali, District
Pali.
2. Venus S/o Jethmal, R/o Bali Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
3. Dhanraj S/o Hansram, R/o Bali Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
4. Anil Kumar S/o Kundanmal, R/o Bali Tehsil Bali, District
Pali.
5. Dheera Mal S/o Basti Mal, R/o Bali Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
6. Bharat Kumar S/o Prithviraj, R/o Bali Tehsil Bali, District
Pali.
7. Devendar Singh, Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
8. Jayveer Singh, Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
9. Rajendra Singh, Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
10. Smt. Sukh Kanwar W/o Himmat Singh, Khudala Tehsil Bali
District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Mr. B.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rajeev Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
29/04/2026
1. Present writ petition is filed challenging validity and propriety
of order dated 16.07.2012 passed by learned Board of Revenue
("BOR") whereby, the judgment dated 14.12.2004 passed by
Court of learned Additional District Collector, Pali, has been set
aside and directions were issued to restore the resumed land.
2. It is contended that proceedings under Rajasthan Imposition
of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ("Ceiling Act") were
initially undertaken in the year 1971 and were closed vide order
dated 02.03.1973. However, the said proceedings were reopened
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20534] (2 of 7) [CW-4094/2026]
and ultimately decided vide order dated 14.12.2004, directing the
State authorities to acquire the land in question.
The said order dated 14.12.2004 was challenged by
respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by way of an appeal before the learned
Board of Revenue. While deciding the appeal vide judgment dated
16.07.2012, learned Board of Revenue recorded findings that the
proceedings had been undertaken without following the procedure
prescribed under the Ceiling Act and without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. Learned Board of
Revenue further observed that reopening of the ceiling
proceedings after such a long lapse of time was unjustified.
Accordingly, vide order dated 16.07.2012, learned Board of
Revenue set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2004 and
directed restoration of the resumed land in favour of the
appellants therein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned
Board of Revenue has committed an error in allowing the appeal,
as a huge chunk of land is involved. It is further contended that
while deciding the issue in question, learned Board of Revenue has
failed to take into consideration the relevant provisions of Ceiling
Act.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. J.L. Purohit,
appearing for the respondents, submits that present writ petition
challenging the order dated 16.07.2012 has been filed after a
gross delay of fourteen years. It is further submitted that there is
not even a whisper in the writ petition explaining the delay and
laches in filing the present petition. It is, therefore, contended that
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20534] (3 of 7) [CW-4094/2026]
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of
delay and laches.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel contended that as a matter of fact,
the order impugned dated 16.07.2012 has not been challenged by
respondent - State in last 14 years and also not complied with the
directions contained therein. In these circumstances, S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 5393/2026 (Sanjay Kumar Vs State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) has been preferred praying for compliance of
order dated 16.07.2012. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 28.03.2026, disposed of the said writ petition and
directed District Collector, Pali to comply with the judgment dated
16.07.2012 within a period of 45 days. It is contended that
present writ petition is filed just with a view to escape compliance
of judgment dated 28.03.2026, therefore, present writ petition is
nothing, but a gross abuse of process of law.
4.2 Learned Senior Counsel further stated that issue involved in
the present case is covered by judgment passed by this Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17987/2024 (State of Rajasthan
vs. Nishan Singh & Ors) so also law laid down in case of S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 20730/2025 (State of Rajasthan vs.
Smt. Anju Babel & Anr.).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Upon perusal of record of the present case, this Court finds
that challenging impugned order dated 16.07.2012, present writ
petition is filed after fourteen years and no explanation, much less
any satisfactory explanation is mentioned in the writ petition to
justify said delay. This Court is of the considered view that, on the
one hand, respondent-authorities have failed to comply with the
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20534] (4 of 7) [CW-4094/2026]
directions issued by learned Board of Revenue for more than a
decade, and on the other hand, the present writ petition has been
filed only to avoid compliance of the directions contained in the
judgment dated 28.03.2026. Such conduct clearly disentitles the
petitioner-State from any indulgence of this Court.
7. Judgments relied upon by counsel for respondents are aptly
applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. While
dismissing writ petition involving similar facts, in the case of
Nishan Singh (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has made
following observations :
7. The only prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing
of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated
05.12.2012 & 17.09.2013. On the face of the record, the writ
petition has been filed after a gross and palpable delay of
about 12 years. A bare perusal of the pleadings clearly shows
that no reason has been assigned in the present writ petition
for approaching this Court after a delay of about 12 years. In
the absence of any explanation much less the satisfactory
explanation for delay in approaching the Court, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the present writ petition after a delay
of about 12 years.
8. This Court further takes note of the fact that the
respondents herein preferred the writ petition before this Court
being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9473/2024 which has been
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 in the
presence of the Government Counsel, who has preferred this
writ petition before this Court. The order passed by this Court
on 06.08.2024 reads as follows :
"1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a
grievance that despite of the fact that an order
favourable to the petitioner was passed by the Board
of Revenue way back on 05.12.2012 and order dated
04.07.2016 passed in contempt petition filed by the
petitioners and directions were issued by the
Additional Collector, Ceiling, Pali on 09.10.2020, the
revenue authorities are not recording petitioners'
name in the revenue record.
2. A direction has been sought to the revenue
authorities to comply with the above referred orders,
more particularly, the order dated 05.12.2012 passed
by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
3. Mr. S. S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate
General submitted that the land involved in the
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20534] (5 of 7) [CW-4094/2026]
present case so also the other adjoining land
comprises of a big chunk of land approximately 1200
bighas and the various proceedings under the Ceiling
Act have been undertaken by the State Authorities
due towhich, the order of the Board of Revenue has
not been complied with.
4. Be that as it may. Since the Board of Revenue has
finally determined petitioners' rights by way of order
dated 05.12.2012, the respondent No.2 - Tehsildar is
directed to carry out requisite mutation entry/and
correct the revenue record in tendum with the order
of the Board of Revenue dated 05.12.2012.
5. The requisite order with regard to correcting the
revenue entries in petitioners' case be passed within a
period of six weeks from today. 6. The present writ
petition so also the stay petition stand disposed of
accordingly."
9. Since the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already
directed the State Government to implement the orders
passed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, any order being
passed contrary to the same will be virtually overriding and
nullifying the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on
06.08.2024, wherein, the subject matter was the same orders
of the Board of Revenue.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submits
that neither any recalling application nor any appeal against
the order dated 06.08.2024 has been filed.
11. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the present writ petition and therefore,
the same is dismissed.
8. Moreover, law with regard to non-maintainability of writ
petition on the ground of delay and laches is explained by this
Court in case of Smt. Anju Babel (supra), wherein it has been
held as under :
6.1 The law with regard to the delay and laches is no more
res integra and 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 in a reasonable time. Excessive or
inordinate delay in filing the writ petition deprives the
petitioner of any relief from the court.
6.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda
Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215 opined that inordinate delay or
laches defeats equity. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced herein below:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on
perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20534] (6 of 7) [CW-4094/2026]
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 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."
6.3 The Hon'ble Courts, in a catena of authoritative
pronouncements, have consistently held that where a writ in
the nature of certiorari is prayed for challenging an order
passed by a Civil Court, Revenue Court, or any quasi-judicial
authority, such petition is required to be filed within a
reasonable period, which has generally been construed to be
up to ninety days.
6.4 However, in the present case, it is an admitted position
that the writ petition has been instituted after an inordinate
delay of nearly six years. Significantly, the petitioners have
neither offered any explanation nor furnished any satisfactory
justification for such enormous delay. The writ petition,
therefore, suffers from gross laches and is not worthy of
consideration on merits.
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20534] (7 of 7) [CW-4094/2026]
6.5 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 of any relief from the court. The 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 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."
6.6 In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be
rejected solely on the ground of delay in filing the same.
9. In view of discussion made above and considering admitted
factual position that present writ petition is filed after a gross and
unexplained delay of 14 years, that too just to avoid compliance of
order dated 28.03.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ
petition and therefore, same is, hereby, dismissed.
10. Stay petition as well as other miscellaneous applications,
also disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
17-shashikant/-
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 02:50:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
