M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED & Anr. v. G. JAYARAM REDDY & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the appeals are dismissed
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act s. 11
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 4(1), 6
- VII of the Act
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 136, 226
Judgment
was found unsatisfactory by the Single Judge, who A decided the writ petition after remand by the Division Bench; (iii) whether the discretion exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court to ignore the delay in filing of writ petition is vitiated by any patent error or the reasons assigned for rejecting the appellants' objection B of delay are irrelevant and extraneous; and (iv) whether the High Court was justified in directing restoration of land to respondent No.1. Dismissing .the appeals, the Court c HELD: 1.1. Although, framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period .of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any person or authority including any Government, 0 directions, orders or writs is not hedged with any condition or constraint, the superior Courts have evolved several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and may deny relief to the petitioner if he is found E guilty of laches. The principle underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the High Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of constitutional, legal or other right is not F entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason for the High Court's refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallized and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a G person who has approached the court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and no straigl1tjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided H on its own facts. [para 17) [734-B-F] 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 $.C.R. A
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the appeals are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act — s. 11; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — ss. 4(1), 6; VII of the Act; Constitution of India — arts. 14, 136, 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.