H!GH COURTOF JUDIGATURE CHHArr!SQARH v. HiraRam ChervaS/o Bachhu

Judgment

3. ThsState of Chhattisgarh Throygh:TheSecretary, Dgpartment of Revenue, DK-S Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Coltector, Surguja Dsstrict Surguja (CG) TheSecreSary, C.G. Resham Pariyqana & Samuh, Karkuti Swayatta (Lakhanpuri District Surguja (CG) ^ Present:

Mr.F.S.Kharelearhedcounseiforthepetitioriers, j ivir. Sanjay S.ngrawai; ieamed ©,A.,fortheState 6fC.G.!| ' (Passed on 9th of.january, 2006) !n th.is u'rit petition, the petitioners ha'/s impugnsd the Qrder }; '.[1 ifi! ofths C&ycsctQr. Surcsuist. the socond fesDOhdsnt h©r9ih.dsted 2Q/OS/1999 •:. - granting ten hectares of land compnsed in KhaSrafNns. 113 and 91 sf .. [ Karkoti (Lakhanpur) v'Uage, Patu'ari Halka No.18, whichia"'4 isherein^ftw shortiv fsfoff^ to ss "ths schsdulo Isind",, fsvQUF of Chhs^isgsrh 'in Rsshar" Pariyojana & Swaygtfa Sarnuh, ffis thir'dl rsspond&nt hsi[ein, It is 1t©case "f the Detitio'i'"'? *Rat under the Reyar>us Book Circu!ar. ',-' is* l'!|!i):l. l;i!"s-r nSillSB QSa - 2-- thsy hsvs fc$©nin unsuthorizsd QCcuDSitiori ofth©schsduls fsnd frQm th& w^ar ^93$ 2?id thQ OoyQmmspt snd QQysmmsrsts! suthoritiss novsr objectsd to their unauthorizsd possession at any point of time and therefors, ths schedute !and ought not to havs bssn grantsd i" favour of ths thirdrespQndent. • (2} I heard ths Isarned counse! for the parties. -Shri Sanjay S. Aarsws!. tesm'sd Oovt. AcivQC3t9. 2t ths thrssholci. corstoridsc! thst this wrft ng^ort 13 tjgi^ig: t^ bs dlsmissod in ^/??j/?ff on ths Qfound of dslsy sp.d 'achss on!y bscsuss the writ petitio" was fited after a !apss QfSyssrsand mors fror" ths date of impugnsd oi'dsr and no sxpianstio" was offsred for the inordinate de'ay. He ateo contendsd that thsrs is no meriti" the cass. (3) Thsre is no necsssity for me to appreciate the above grievance of ths pstitioners brought before the Court i" any dstai!. !t is, bscause, this writ petition, in my considsred op'nion, is Hab10 to be dismissed in SmSne so!e!y on the ground ofds'ay and 'achss bssidos other grounds. ^ (4) AithQugh the power ofths High C-ourts undsr Article 228 of the Const'tution is diScretJQnary and no !j""ts can bs p'acsd upQn that diseretion, that powe!||®stbeexercised a'ong recognized tines andinet arbitrari'y and subject to certain self-'iT'ppssd-limitations. Therefore, the appiication for writ and/or order may be refused by the High CouFt upon a considerat'Qn Qfesrtsin circumstancesas dissntifing ths appSicantto relief 9^n though h©rnsy hsys isgsi nghtwhich hss be&n iRfflnQsd. OhQ ofths ^ i?- •i' circumstancss to refuse rs!ief to a" appticanf js that the conduct of ths applicant is such that he does not dsssrve the discretiona'y rem°dy because h6 is guiKy of 'achss or undus ds'ay Qr^hat hs f'as not CQm®W'VP- ctean hands. Though there is no spscsfic psnod of iimitetioh.the High Coutt msv rs^iso to 9x©rclsA ths sxtrsord'p.srv discrfltiQ.n2.1'y Dowsr CQnfsrrsd UDOH 't under Af^cio 22S of ths OoRstitutiQ" whof^the D9t!ti! te /^Mfltv /^f ^jl^itiihjr •>^> i'wt^fii'w •wfi !?»?shd<? nr finHft^ ^^!av fr>r •ul-WtUty, •w* i •*<«*»<ui tA/hi^h f'hAro nn <s?i+i<sfa/»fAFv tt»III»/>l hl l«-r«•-r fST i i S^ i^-^i^is^i ^ii^/^^ifi ^ v/^^it^i ii^uvt i. ^ii,i,w^ ft i« i^Win^ »fi>>»tviiv»-rr»/»wi.i»»^>^^i th<s fa?l^s ?>n/^ fkirrkt!mc+an/td<s nf fha ' /l^c;a /'•l&arlv i^^^S^ ^ i-^^i i^ ^i i-v iustt^ ths fschss or unduQ dslsy. ths DstitiQnsrs. ths citizsns othorwiss. wou!d not b©sntitiod to rs'isf. This Dosition is y^ii sstSfod bv the judgmQrits of the Supreme Court in umptee" number of cases and to cite a few are the decistons in State of Hary-ana Vs.Bhajania!1, Stet&ofOrissays.ArunKusnarPatriaik' Stats of ?.?ii.%oreVs. Kangan, -^F" V.K., u'agadamBika PraSap Singh, Raja Vs, e.B.ft,4, Durga Prasad Vs. Ghlef CorrtroHer, !i"po?t S Export5, Khub Ghand Vs; Stete srf Rajasthan6, Chandra Bhushan Vs. Dy. Director of ConsoiidaSon, U.P., gabu SSngh Vs. Uiiion of Sndia, Ashok Kumar Vs. Coi'iector. Ramesh Kuniar Vs. nuiiisai y»; Technoioysca! instltufeofTextiSe11', Sfate of S4.P. Vs. Nand Lain, Mirza !V!ajid Hussain Vs. Stete of Rfl.P. , Chandigarh Adminisfrafion Vs. Jagjit Singh13, Larsen S Toijbro Ltd., State ofGyjrat , ^sheed Vs. Directorof Mlries and Seoiogy15, Sfate of Orissa Vs. Dbobei Sethi16, ""luiitcipa! Corporatipn of Orsatsf BombsyTyr&s Vs. BoiTibsy SntsnialiGnsI Lfei. , ?v!Iunicipai OounciS Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Myder Beig18, Stefe ofMaharashtra Vs. Dlgambar". A"t A" that fhe High C-ourt has tosse is whathsr the laches on the part of the pstitiofisr sra such to dlssntitle him to rslisf cislmed by hlm. Ths d@|ay, howe'.'sr, isnota" abso!uts bar whers the dslay fe properiyexplsinsdand to the satisfactio" of the C-ourt or where the de'ay has been caused by ths party raising the ground of delay. As regards the 'apss of

1. (1992) Suw. (1) SCC 335:AIR 1992SC 604 3. AIR 1975 SC 2190: (1976) 2 SCC 8S5 5. AIR 1970 SC7S9:( 1969)1 SCC 185 7,(1%7)2SCR286;AIR1S67SC1272 9. AIR 1980 SC 112: (1980) 1SCC 180 11.AIR 1987 SC 251: {1986)4 SGC 566 1 13.(1M511 SGC645:AIR 1995SC705 15.(1S95) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1995 SC 1739 17.(1998)4SCC 100;AIR1M8SC1629 : 19.{1995) 4 SCC683: AIR 19S5 SC 1SS1. :