Mohd. Yaseen Shareef @ Babujani & Anr. v. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and three others

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri B. Thimothi Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri R. Prem Sagar Dated: 11-07-2006 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ Although Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not specify the period of limitation for filing writ petitions, in last 56 years, the Superior Courts have evolved a rule of self-imposed restraint that the High Court will not entertain belated petitions. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme [1] Court considered the issue of delay in filing of writ petitions under Article 226 and ruled that a petition filed after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing civil suit should ordinarily be treated as belated and relief should be denied to the petitioner unless some tangible and satisfactory explanation is offered regarding the time gap between the date of accrual of cause of action and filing of writ petition.

The propositions of law laid down in that judgment read as under: “ 1 ) If there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party triable is no such delay by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Again where even Government or the statutory authority against whom the consequential relief is prayed for raises a prima availability of such relief on the merits on the grounds like limitation the Court should ordinarily refuse to issue the writ of mandamus for such payment. In both these kinds of cases if will be sound use of discretion to leave the party to seek his remedy by the ordinary mode of action in a issue as regards civil court and to refuse to exercise in his favour the extra-ordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2) The provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226. However, the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art.

226 can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable. The same view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Trilokchand v. H.B. Munshi . In that case, [2] the majority of the Court ruled that even though there is no upper or lower limit for filing of the writ petition, a petition filed after long lapse of time without reasonable explanation should be treated as belated. The Court further held that if a petition is filed after long lapse of time, the same can be entertained if the petitioner satisfactorily explains the delay. The proposition laid down in the second decision received approval of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

Etc. Etc. v. Union of India Etc. Etc. [3] . We have prefaced disposal of this appeal by making reference to the above noted judgments because after hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, we are convinced that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the appellant’s prayer for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to allot them Acs.3-27 guntas of land. Sri Mohd. Shareef, grandfather of the appellants was pattedar of land measuring Ac.4-23 gts comprised in Survey No.9 situated at Raviryala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In 1967, that land was acquired for construction of Maternity Hospital (Jajji Hospital) and School. After 12 years, the respondents allotted two parcels of land measuring Ac.4-30 gts. and Ac.4-34 gts. to petitioners’ father Sri Mahaboob Shareef and their uncle Sri Yousuuf Shareef respectively comprised in Survey No.241 in lieu of the acquired land.

Sri Mahaboob Shareef and Yousuuf Shareef did not raise any controversy regarding the actual area of the land allotted to them. However, after a period of 25 years, the appellants are said to have made representations dated 10-1-2005 and 30-3-2006 to the respondents that the total area of the land allotted to their father and uncle was only Ac.6-00 and they were entitled to an additional land of Ac.3-27 gts. After nine days of making the second representation, the petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to allot them Ac.3- 27 gts. of land. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the same is highly belated and no explanation of the long time gap of 27 years has been offered. Sri B.Thimothi argued learned Single Judge committed a serious error by refusing to entertain the prayer of the appellants because their right to allotment of Ac.3-27 gts has not been disputed.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellants could not have been non-suited only on the ground of delay because acceptance of their prayer would not have adversely affected any one. He then submitted that failure of the appellants’ father and uncle, who were illiterate rustic villagers, to raise objection regarding the actual measurement of the land should not be made a ground for denying relief to the appellants. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions and arguments of the learned counsel. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the prayer of the appellants. It is not in dispute that the appellants’ father and uncle did not raise any objection regarding the total extent of land or its measurement. Rather, they accepted the allotment without raising any protest. They never approached the concerned revenue authorities with the grievance that the total area of the land allotted to them was less than Ac.9-27 gts.