The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11480 of 2025 Sadhu Oram …. Mr.Omkar Panda, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Jateswar Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA ORDER 16.05.2025 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 16:10:44 (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioner Sadhu Oram has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the compensation amount along with interest for acquisition of his land as per schedule mentioned in the writ petition. It appears from the pleadings that some lands were acquired way back in the year 1973 for which no compensation was paid, however, there is no documentary proof that the land of the petitioner has been acquired. It further appears that some persons filed a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 1813 of 1980 challenging the rejection orders to record their names in respect of Government lands and vide order dated 20.11.1987, this Court while declining to interfere with the same, observed that if the petitioners in that writ petition have not been paid with compensation amount, the Page 1 of 7 same shall be paid to them. It further appears that the petitioner Sadhu Oram filed W.P.(C) No.16603 of 2015 for the self-same relief, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 16.11.2021. Again after a long gap, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the similar relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was submitting representations after representations before the authorities concerned, but no action has yet been taken and thereby, it has caused delay. In support of such contention, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 223.04.2025 passed in S.L.P.(Civil) nos. 670 of 2020 and 2832 of 2020 and submitted that delay is not a reason to deny the land losers their compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable for the land they have lost. It is the settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. While exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be kept in mind by the High Court, as a party who is guilty of delay and laches cannot be granted any relief. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board -Vrs.- T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the effect of laches in litigation and held as follows: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the in mind that it Page 2 of 7 rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” Page 3 of 7 In the case of Mrinmoy Maity -vrs.- Chhanda Koley and others : A.I.R. 2024 S.C. 2717 : 2024 LiveLaw SC 318, where an application under Article 226 had been filed by an applicant for grant of LPG distributorship after a delay of four years challenging the selection of a rival applicant, the Supreme Court has held 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 writ petitioner ought to have been nonsuited or in other words 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 born 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. 10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ Page 4 of 7 court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled. 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 nonsuited. 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, in as much 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. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others -vrs.- State of W.B and others reported in (2009) 1 S.C.C. 768 has held to the following effect: “56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Page 5 of 7 refusing exercise 57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest opportunity. possible reasonably Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground such to for discretionary The jurisdiction. underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]). 58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of court facts before depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose.” the It appears that the petitioner has not filed a single document with regard to the acquisition of his land by the opposite party authorities. That apart, the acquisition, if any, was made in the year 1973 and the petitioner has failed to Page 6 of 7 substantiate the cause of delay in approaching this Court. In view of the settled principle of law as enumerated above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (S.S. Mishra) PKSahoo/Rajesh Page 7 of 7