TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI versus M. MEIYAPPAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1184 · Decided: 29-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1184 
A 
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI 
B 
V. 
M. MEIYAPPAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 2002) 
OCTOBER 29, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
c 
Articles 32 and 226 - Writ petition challenging acquisition 
of land - Filed after 16 years of the award of compensation -
HELD: The Courts are expected to be very cautious and 
circumspect about exercising their discretionary jurisdiction 
under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution if there has 
0 
been inordina te and unexplained delay in questioning the 
validity of acquisition of land - In the mslant case, the writ 
petitioners did not furnish any explanation, and they had 
participated in the proceedings before Land Acquisition 
Collector - High Court should have dismissed the writ petition 
E pt the threshold for delay and /aches - Land Acquisition -
Delay/Laches. 
Pursuant to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published in the Gazette 
dated 7.3.1979, certain lands were acquired for providing 
F housing facilities to .people of low income group. The 
award of compensation was made on 28.4.1982. The land 
owners-respondents nos. 1 to 17 filed a writ petition in 
December, 1997 challenging the acquisition of their land. 
The appellant Housing Board, contested the writ petition, 
G inter alia, on the ground of !aches stating that possession 
of the land had been taken over and handed to it on 
4.12.1979 and the writ petition was filed after a lapse of 
15 years. However, the High Court allowed the writ 
petition observing that the case was covered by the 
H 
1184 
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI v M. 
1185 
MEIYAPPAN AND ORS. 
judgment in W. P. No. 2244 of 1991. Aggrieved, the 
A 
Housing Board filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is trite law that delay and laches is one 
8 
of the important factors which the High Court must bear 
in mind while exercising discretionary power under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is such negligence 
or omission on the part of the petitioner to assert his right 
which, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and 
other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite C 
party, the High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-
ordinary jurisdiction. Moreover, in relation to the land 
acquisition proceedings, courts should be loathe to 
encourage stale litigation, as the same might hinder 
projects of public importance. The Courts are expected 
D 
to be very cautious and circumspect about exercising 
their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 
32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate 
unexplained delay in questioning the validity of 
acquisition of land.[para 14 and 19] [1191-C-E; 1194-A-B] 
E 
Rabindranath Bose & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. 
1970 (2) SCR 697 = (1970) 1 SCC 84 Ourga Prashad Vs. 
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports 1969 (2) SCR 596 = 
(1969) 1 SCC 185 Tridip Kumar Oingal & Ors. Vs. State of 
F 
West Bengal & Ors. Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. Vs. State of 
West Bengal & Ors. 2008 (15) SCR 194 = (2009) 1 SCC 768; 
Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar Vs. State of 
Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. 2009 (1) SCR 689 
= (2009) 3 SCC 281; P. Chinnanna & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. 
& Ors 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 426 = (1994) 5 SCC 486; and 
G 
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors. 2004 (3) 
SCR 799 = (2004) 4 sec 460, relied on. 
Dayal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2003 (1) 
SCR 714 = (2003) 2 SCC 593, disapproved. 
H 
1186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Mis Trilok Singh Mohan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & 
Ors. (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 144 and Mohinder Singh Sharma 
& Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 1988 PLJ 525, cited. 
1.2. In the instant case, the respondents did not 
8 furnish any explanation as to why it took them 16 years 
to challenge the acquisition of their lands when, 
admittedly, they were aware of it and had, in fact, 
participated in the proceedings before the Land 
Acquisition Collector. The High Court ought not to have 
C entertained the writ petition after 16 years of the passing 
of the award, and should have dismissed it at the 
threshold on the ground of delay and laches on the part 
of respondent Nos.1 to 17, notwithstanding its earlier 
decision in W.P. No.2244 of 1991, which decision, 
according 
to 
the 
appellant, 
was 
otherwise 
D distinguishable. The judgment of the High Court is set 
aside an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.