Judgment J.B. Pardiwala, J.—The appellant – original writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order dated 28th October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5138/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition substantially on the ground that the petitioner approached the Court praying for a discretionary relief almost after a delay of about 17 years and further on the ground that the entire dispute related to a money claim. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal can be summarised as under: 1. It appears that in the year 1976, proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated against the appellant – petitioner by the State Government. 2. On 14th September 1976 the appellant filled in the form under Section 6 of the Act. 3. It also appears from the record that on 5th February 1993 the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs with the Government by way of security deposit. At the time when this amount was deposited, it appears that the appellant was in preventive detention. 4. Record reveals that on 25th September 1992 the appellant was detained as a ‘land grabber’ under the provisions of Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1995. It appears that while under detention he voluntarily on his own deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. 5. Record reveals that vide order dated 30th March 1993 the competent authority under the Act held hat the appellant was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit and consequently held that the order passed under Section 34 of the Act became nugatory. 6. In the year 1999, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be repealed. On repeal, the appellant preferred several representations to the Government requesting to refund the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs deposited towards security. It is the case of the appellant that, however, no cognizance was taken on any of his representations. 7. 6. In the year 1999, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be repealed. On repeal, the appellant preferred several representations to the Government requesting to refund the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs deposited towards security. It is the case of the appellant that, however, no cognizance was taken on any of his representations. 7. Almost after a period of about 11 years from the date of repeal of the Act and almost after 17 years from the date of the order passed by the competent authority holding that the appellant had no excess land, a writ petition came to be preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Government for refund of Rs. 15 lakhs which the appellant had deposited on 5th February 1993. 8. Learned Single Judge, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the appellant – original petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the appellant approached the Court almost after a delay of about 17 years and further that the entire dispute related to a money claim. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is this judgment and order, which has been assailed in this Appeal. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Percy Kavina appearing with Mr. Biren Vaishnav for the appellant and Mrs. Manisha Shah, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in dismissing the petition on the ground that the reliefs prayed for in the petition are purely money claim. Learned Counsel would also submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in dismissing the petition on the ground that the same was filed after a delay of 17 years. Counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the appellant – petitioner kept on preferring representations but no cognizance was taken by the Government on such representations. Counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the appellant – petitioner kept on preferring representations but no cognizance was taken by the Government on such representations. Lastly, Learned Counsel submitted that if any amount is to be recovered from the State, which has been wrongfully withheld, then it would always be open for the appellant – petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned AGP for the State submitted that no error, much less an error of law, can be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and no interference is warranted at our ends in this Appeal. Learned AGP would further submit that there is a gross delay of about 17 years in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court and the learned Single Judge has rightly not entertained the writ petition on the ground of delay. Learned AGP pointed out to this Court that the appellant was detained as a ‘land grabber’ under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1995 as he had encroached upon Government land and had made unauthorized construction over the same. Learned AGP also pointed out that after encroaching upon the Government land and after making unauthorized construction, the same was sold to other persons. 6. Apart from the submissions of the learned AGP, we are disturbed with the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri B.K. Thakkar, Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:— “I respectfully say that the petitioner was declared as land grabber under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1995 and order dated 25.9.1992 came to be passed against the present petitioner under the said Act. I further say that the petitioner had encroached upon Government land and had made construction over it and had sold the said land to certain other persons and had therefore cheated persons and obtained huge amount of money by selling such lands which were of the ownership of the State Government. I further say that the petitioner had encroached upon Government land and had made construction over it and had sold the said land to certain other persons and had therefore cheated persons and obtained huge amount of money by selling such lands which were of the ownership of the State Government. I further say that the petitioner had vide letter dated 8.7.1993 written to the then Hon’ble Chief Minister for revocation of the PASA detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Rajkot in which the petitioner had stated that he had already deposited Rs. 15,00,000/- with the Government and had assured to pay any further amount if needed at the final outcome of the ULC case. I further say that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited Rs. 15 lacs with the State Government and the petitioner has not produce anything on record to show that the said amount has been deposited pursuant to any order of the State Government. I further say that even otherwise the aforesaid amount has been deposited under which terms and conditions, are not coming forth. I further say that upon bare perusal of the challan produced at Annexure-B, it nowhere says that the said amount would be refunded to the petitioner after certain point of time. I respectfully say that Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 came to be repealed in the year 1999, after which the petitioner had made representation to the State Government requesting for refund of security deposit amount, pursuant to which the State Government had vide letter dated 3.10.2005 directed the competent authority and Additional Collector, ULC to submit the detailed report to the State Government to which the office of the Collector had vide letter dated 10.1.2008 submitted an interim report to the State Government and further investigation is still going on as the petitioner had played major mischief and had sold away different parcels of land as narrated in detention order situated in different survey numbers of Rajkot city. I further say that the State Government had vide letter dated 1.12.2008 has directed the competent authority and Additional Collector, Rajkot to investigate into encroachment upon the Government land in consultation with the GIDC and to give details of all illegal construction done on agricultural land to which the office of the Collector has further directed the Mamlatdar on 31.1.2009 and 17.6.2010 to inquire and submit a report. I further respectfully say that the petitioner had produced suspicious and forged documents before the Deputy Collector in proceedings of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act and therefore two police complaints (FIRs) came to be registered on 8.4.1997 against the present petitioner under Sections 471, 466, 177, 181, 193, 196 as well as Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. I further say that the office of the Collector has called for the latest information with regard to both the FIRs from the Rajkot Taluka Police Station which I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce as and when the same are available with the answering deponent. I respectfully say that looking to the aforesaid irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner, the State Government is required to recover huge penalty for breach of conditions, penalty for constructing industrial units on agricultural land, premium of converting agricultural land to non-agricultural land as well as recover enormous amount which the petitioner had acquired by selling Government land. I further say that proceedings with regard to breach of condition and encroachment are pending and under consideration before the Deputy Collector, Rajkot and Additional Mamlatdar, Rajkot city. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be refunded any amount as the petitioner has caused huge/enormous revenue loss to the State Government by selling/embezzlement of various parcels of land of the ownership of the State Government and acquired such amount for his personal gains as well as for the fact that the inquiry against the petitioner is going on and therefore no amount can be refunded to the petitioner and the petition is required to be dismissed.” 7. Firstly, we are not able to understand as to why an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was deposited by the appellant with the State Government in the year 1993. Assuming for a moment that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act were in progress, even then it is not clear as to why and under which order of the authority, the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was deposited. However, the most disturbing feature of this matter is the conduct of the appellant. The affidavit-in-reply is grossly shocking, and most importantly, nothing of what has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply has been denied by the appellant. 15 lakhs was deposited. However, the most disturbing feature of this matter is the conduct of the appellant. The affidavit-in-reply is grossly shocking, and most importantly, nothing of what has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply has been denied by the appellant. We are of the view that, considering the conduct of the appellant – original petitioner, no discretionary relief can be granted as prayed for by the appellant in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if such action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, though in the present case there is none, the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction contained therein, can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Legal formulations cannot be enforced, divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable considerations and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal. 8. We have noticed that the appellant – petitioner approached the Court after 17 years of delay. By merely saying that he had preferred representations and the Government was not taking cognizance of his representations, is no ground to entertain a writ petition preferred almost after a period of 17 years from the date of cause of action. We have also noticed that the entire dispute relates to recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs from the Government. 9. We take notice of the fact that as on today, even if the appellant wants to prefer a civil suit against the Government for recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs, the same would be time-barred. If a suit is time barred as per the Law of Limitation, then it cannot be substituted by filing a writ petition after a period of 17 years. Besides, we are also disturbed with the manner in which the appellant has conducted himself. 15 lakhs, the same would be time-barred. If a suit is time barred as per the Law of Limitation, then it cannot be substituted by filing a writ petition after a period of 17 years. Besides, we are also disturbed with the manner in which the appellant has conducted himself. Serious allegations of land grabbing, unauthorized construction on agricultural land and other lands have been levelled, for which, it appears that proceedings are already initiated against the appellant. We have also noticed that there are two criminal prosecutions pending against the appellant for offences of cheating and forgery. 10. In this view of the matter, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the appellant. We do not find any error, much less an error of law, said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost. P P P P P