Principle Of Denial Of Relief On Grounds Of Laches Is Applicable To Public Interest Litigation: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that the principle of denial of relief on the grounds of laches is equally applicable to Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The Court held thus in a PIL filed by the residents of a village seeking redress for grievances related to the allotment of land to a Public Trust, requesting the cancellation of the said allotment, an inquiry into the alleged illegalities in the land allotment process, and the transfer of the land to individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Economically Backward Classes (EBCs).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar observed, “The principle of denial of relief on the grounds of laches is equally applicable to public interest litigation. If there is no proper explanation for the delay or laches, even public interest litigations are liable to dismissal due to unexplained delay or laches. In the absence of any explanation, this Court is not obligated to consider whether the petitioners' explanation is sufficient to condone the delay and laches in filing the present PIL Petition.”
Advocate Smita R. Gaidhani represented the petitioners while Government Pleader P.P. Kakade and Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The subject matter of the PIL was regarding the land and the petitioners reserved its portion for a Muslim community burial ground in 1994. Thereafter, the District Collector approved a scheme for impoverished individuals belonging to the SCs and STs under the Village Extension Scheme, reserving 2 hectares and 92 acres of land for the implementation of the said scheme. As per the petitioners, the Tahsildar appointed the Taluka Inspector of Land Records to measure the land and demarcate 110 plots for allotment to poor individuals from SCs and STs under the scheme.
In 1995, an amount was sanctioned for implementing the scheme and was disbursed by the Tahsildar, however the said plots were not handed over to the SCs and STs. Then the Collector communicated to the Public Trust that the land could not be allotted for an educational institution as it was designated for national highway boundary widening and was classified as an industrial zone. The petitioners alleged that the respondent misused his position as an ex-MLA to facilitate the transfer of the land.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “In the present case, the principles outlined in the decision of the Privy Council in Lindsay Petroleum Company (supra) apply. The record indicates that the fact of the land allotment was published on the board of the Grampanchayat before the certification of the mutation entry on April 11, 2000. The mutation record was updated in 2000 for the first allotment and on February 5, 2009, for the second allotment. Thus, it appears that the petitioners approached this Court in August 2013 with the PIL Petition after an unexplained inordinate delay. By doing so, the petitioners have placed Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in a situation where it would be unreasonable, inequitable, and unjust to revert them to their original position before the construction of the buildings for educational purpose.”
The Court added that even assuming the petitioners had a strong case on merits, intervening at this stage would now be inequitable and unjust and the petitioners are solely responsible for this delay.
“However, the petitioners' submission regarding the alleged breach of lease conditions by mortgaging the land to financial institution requires adjudication. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the period of land allotment was 15 years from the date of allotment. No evidence has been produced by the parties to the petition to indicate that this lease period has been extended”, it said.
The Court concluded that the Collector must adjudicate the issue of the expiration of lease and issue appropriate orders in accordance with the law if the lease was not renewed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL.
Cause Title- Govind Kondiba Tanpure & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:31542-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Smita R. Gaidhani
Respondents: GP P.P. Kakade, Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, AGPs O.A. Chandurkar, G.R. Raghuwanshi, Advocates Revati A. Tatkare, Pradeep M. Patil, and Pravin B. Gole.
