YUNUS (BABOOBHAI) A HAMID PADVEKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 28-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 689 
YUNUS (BABOOBHAI) A HAMID PADVEKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 
AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 486 of 2009) 
JANUARY 28, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
LANO ACQUISITION: 
Land acquired for Industrial development -
Representation of release of the land - Committee appointed 
A 
B 
c 
by Legislative Assembly for considering the representation -
Meanwhile Writ Petition filed in High Court - High Court D 
dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that it was highly 
belated - On appeal, Held: Unexplained delay coupled with 
creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important 
factor which weighs with the High Court - Hence no 
interference called for - Maharashtra Industrial Development 
E 
Act, 1961 - S.39(2a). 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation 
acquired certain lands including that of the appellant. A 
representation was made by the appellant to the Collector 
for release of the land. A Committee was appointed by the 
F 
Legislative Assembly to consider such representations. 
Meanwhile, appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court 
and it was dismissed on the ground that it was highly 
belated. Hence the appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Delay or laches is one of the factors which 
is to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they 
exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of 
689 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 
A the Constitution of India, 1950. In an appropriate case the 
--+ 
High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers 
if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the 
applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with 
the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes 
B prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental 
right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of 
the Court. [Para 8] [693-D-F] 
1.2. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a 
belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is 
C likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and 
bring in its trail new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is 
exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect 
of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also 
injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when 
D writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled 
with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is 
an important factor which also weighs with the High 
Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such 
E 
jurisdiction. [Para 11] [695-A-C] 
Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports 
AIR 1970 SC 769; Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Courts AIR 
1967 SC 1450; Maharashtra State Transport Corporation v. 
Ba/want Regular Motor Service AIR 1969 SC 329; R.N Bose 
F 
v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 470 and State of M.P. v. 
G 
H 
Nandla/ AIR 1987 SC 251, relied on. 
Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong 
Hurde etc. (187 4) 5 PC 221, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1970 SC 769 
AIR 1967 SC 1450 
AIR 1969 SC 329 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 8 
Para 9 
Para 9 
YUNUS (BABOOBHAI) A HAMID PADVEKAR v. STATE 
691 
OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECTY. 
AIR 1970 SC 470 
relied on 
Para 10 
A 
AIR 1987 SC 251 
relied on 
Para 11 
(1874) 5 PC 221 
referred to 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 486 
B 
of 2009. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in writ Petition No. 1300 of 
2004. 
c . 
Rana Mukherjee, Bishwajeet Swain and Abhilash Kumar 
for the Appellant. 
Shruti Chaudhary, Swati Sinha, Jayasree Singh (for M/s. 
Fox Manda! and Co.) Aniruddha P. Mayee and Abhilash Kumar 
D 
_.., 
for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
E 
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ 
Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it was highly 
belated. It also noted that the appellant had received 
~ compensation in respect of the land which was acquired. 
F 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
In the year 1971 Maharashtra Industrial Development· 
Corporation (in short 'MIDC') acquired about 1250 acres of 
agricultural land situated at four villages in Ratnagiri district of G 
Maharashtra. Thirty eight acres of land belonging to the 
..,. 
appellant were acquired. It is the stan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.