Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 65 (CHH)

Inderchand Dhariwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-02-24

SANJAY K.AGARWAL

body2015
ORDER Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have sought appropriate writ(s) commanding respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RDA') herein to execute and register the lease deed in their favour in respect of the land admeasuring 42,000 sq. ft. of Scheme No.32 Devendra Nagar of said Authority and also sought related consequential benefits. 2. Imperative facts necessary for adjudication of dispute raised in this writ petition are as under : 2.1 Respondent No. 2-RDA took a decision to auction the land admeasuring 1,08,000 sq. feet, which was lying vacant in Scheme No. 32 of respondent No. 2-RDA, known as Devendra Nagar Scheme. Accordingly, the auction sale was held on 24-5-1985. In the said auction, bid offered by the petitioners was accepted being highest. The petitioners, in accordance with terms and conditions of the auction, were directed to deposit ¼th of the bid amount and they deposited it. 2.2 One Prakashchand Lunked and another filed a writ petition numbered as Misc. Petition No. 1464/85 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh impugning the legality and validity of the action of respondent No. 2/RDA in auctioning the land in question. The High Court of M.P. by its order dated 23-5-1985, held that auction shall not be finally confirmed until further orders. 2.3 The petitioners were required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 24,09,750/- as per Condition No. 11 of the terms and conditions of auction within sixty days of receipt of information of acceptance of bid but they did not deposit the said amount leading to the passing of the order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) by respondent No. 2/RDA forfeiting the ¼th amount of bid i.e. Rs. 8,03,250/- deposited by the petitioners for violation of Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the auction. 2.4 The petitioners filed Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh questioning the above-stated order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) forfeiting the one fourth amount Rs. 8,03,250/- by respondent No. 2/RDA. 8,03,250/- deposited by the petitioners for violation of Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the auction. 2.4 The petitioners filed Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh questioning the above-stated order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) forfeiting the one fourth amount Rs. 8,03,250/- by respondent No. 2/RDA. 2.5 The petitioners, apart from filing writ petition questioning the order forfeiting one fourth amount deposited by them, also made representations to respondent No. 2/RDA on 23-8-1988 (Annexure P-6) and 5-6-1995 (Annexure P-7) stating inter alia that order forfeiting one fourth amount is violative of the principles of natural justice as they have not been afforded opportunity of hearing before forfeiting the said amount and, as such, the order dated 10-9-1985 be revoked. 2.6 The respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority, by memo dated 29-8-1995 (Annexure P-8) informed the petitioners with reference to their representation that their case can be considered sympathetically, if the decision with regard to the petition preferred by them and the decision relating to other writ petition preferred by Prakashchand Lunkad is informed to the authority/respondent No. 2 and documents in support thereof is produced. 2.7 By memo dated 31-10-1995, respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners that if the writ petition filed by them is withdrawn from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, then the adjustment of the amount forfeited and allotment of the land will be considered sympathetically and in pursuane of application dated 12-2-1996 filed by the petitioners, respondent No. 2/RDA took a decision that area available in Plot No. 2 will be leased out in favour of the petitioners on the accepted rate and lease deed would be executed subject to filing of the affidavit by the petitioners and informed the said decision to the petitioners by its memo dated 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12). 2.8 In compliance of the decision dated 13-2-1996, petitioners withdrew the Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 filed by them and Prakash Chand Lunkad also withdrew the Misc. Petition No. 1464/85 filed by him before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and petitioners filed affidavit that terms and conditions of the allotment of the land as mentioned in Memo dated 13-2-1996 are acceptable to them. By memo dated 23-2-1996, respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority informed the petitioners that in the plot No. 2, only 66,000 sq. ft. Petition No. 1464/85 filed by him before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and petitioners filed affidavit that terms and conditions of the allotment of the land as mentioned in Memo dated 13-2-1996 are acceptable to them. By memo dated 23-2-1996, respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority informed the petitioners that in the plot No. 2, only 66,000 sq. ft. of the land is available, which can be leased out in their favour at the rate of 29.75 per sq. ft. and after adjusting Rs. 8,03,250/- deposited by the petitioners and they are required to deposit Rs. 11,60,250/- and to get the lease deed executed in their favour vide Annexure P-15. 2.9 Petitioners by memo dated 26-2-1996 accepted the terms and conditions of the decision of RDA/respondent No. 2 conveyed through memo dated 23-2-1996 and ultimately lease deed of 66,000 sq. ft. of land was executed and registered in favour of the petitioners on 29-2-1996, which is marked as Annexure R-2 along with the return filed by the respondent No. 2/RDA. 2.10 Petitioners, after more than two years of registration of lease deed, made a representation on 30-11-1998 stating that instead of executing and registering the leae deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the remaining land i.e. 42,000/- sq. ft. of land, respondent No. 2/RDA has initiated process for re-auctioning the subject land as per news item published in 'Dainik Bhaskar' on 18-11-1998, as such, they are entitled for registration of remaining land in their favour and the instant writ petition was filed on the basis of aforesaid premises stating, inter alia, that respondent No. 2/RDA be commanded by appropriate writ/writs to execute a lease deed in their favour for the remaining land admeasuring 42,000 sq. ft. 3. On rule being issued, the respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority has filed counter-affidavit controverting the facts stated in this writ petition stating inter alia that initially the auction of subject land (1,08,000 sq. ft.) was held and it was knocked down in favour of the petitioners but the petitioners failed to deposit ¾th amount of the bid within sixty days from the date of auction resulting into forfeiture of the money deposited by the petitioners vide order dated 10-9-1985, it was further pleaded that petitioners withdrew the writ petition filed against the order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) forfeiting the ¼th of the bid money i.e. Rs. 8,03,250/- deposited by the petitioners. 4. Thereafter, partly accepting the representation of petitioner in terms of the decision taken by respondent No. 2/Raipur Development Authority dated 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12), petitioners submitted their willingness vide Annexure P-13 and acting upon the same as accepted by the petitioners on 16-2-1996, they withdrew the writ petition filed by them unconditionally; and respondent No. 2/RDA by its memo dated 23-2-1996 directed that only 66,000/- sq. ft. of the land is available on the spot, for which lease deed can be executed and registered in favour of the petitioners and, accordingly, lease deed has been executed in favour of the petitioners on 29-2-1996 and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for further land. The petitioners are bound by decision taken by respondent No. 2/RDA on 13-2-1996, which has unequivocally been accepted by them by withdrawing writ petition unconditionally by filing affidavit and, as such, the writ petition also suffers from delay and laches as it has been filed after three years from the date of execution of lease deed and, thus writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 5. The petitioners have filed rejoinder opposing the averments made in the writ petition. 6. The respondent No. 2/RDA had filed additional return there against and has brought copy of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners as well as Prakashchand Lunkad i.e. Misc. Petition No. 1464/1985 & Misc. Petition No. 3360/85 and the affidavit filed by the petitioners accepting the decision of respondent No. 2/RDA taken on 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12). 7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel, questioning the act of the respondent No. 2/RDA would submit as under : (i) That, in the auction held on 24-5-1985, the rate offered by the petitioners @ 29.75 per sq. ft. to purchase 1,08,000/- sq. ft. land for cinema and commercial plots was accepted by respondent No. 2/RDA and the petitioners were required to deposit Rs. 8,03,250/-, was deposited immediately. (ii) That, the balance amount of Rs. 24,09,750/-, which was required to be deposited within sixty days from the date of acceptance of auction, could not be deposited as one Prakash Chand Lunkad filed Misc. ft. land for cinema and commercial plots was accepted by respondent No. 2/RDA and the petitioners were required to deposit Rs. 8,03,250/-, was deposited immediately. (ii) That, the balance amount of Rs. 24,09,750/-, which was required to be deposited within sixty days from the date of acceptance of auction, could not be deposited as one Prakash Chand Lunkad filed Misc. Petition No. 1464/85 (Prakashchand Lunkad v. Raipur Development Authority, Raipur), in which, interim order was granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 23-5-1985 directing that the respondent No. 2/RDA not to confirm the auction sale until further orders. (iii) The petitioners filed Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 challenging the forfeiture of money deposited by the petitioners for violation of condition No. 11 of the auction sale, but the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on the promise given by respondent No. 2/RDA that if the writ petition filed by them is withdrawn from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, then the adjustment of the amount forfeited and allotment of the land will be considered sympathetically, as such, the respondent No. 2/RDA is bound by the principles of estoppel to execute and register the lease deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of remaining 42,000 sq. ft. land. (iv) That, the action of respondent No. 2/RDA in not executing and registering the lease deed in favour of the petitioners is per se illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 8. Appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/RDA, Shri Sumesh Bajaj & Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsels combating the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners would submit as under : (i) That, the land in dispute was auctioned in favour of the petitioners in a auction sale held on 24-5-1985 but the petitioners failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the auction, particularly, condition No.11 as they have failed to deposit the 75% of the auction money within sixty days from the date of acceptance of bid, pursuant to which, money deposited by the petitioners was forfeited by order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5). (ii) That, the writ petition filed by the petitioners being Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 (Jain & Brothers v. Raipur Development Authority) challenging the order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) was withdrawn by the petitioners on 15-2-1996 unconditionally. (ii) That, the writ petition filed by the petitioners being Misc. Petition No. 3360/1985 (Jain & Brothers v. Raipur Development Authority) challenging the order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) was withdrawn by the petitioners on 15-2-1996 unconditionally. (iii) That, the respondent No. 2/RDA, by its Memo dated 31-10-1995 (Annexure P-10) and 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12), had only held that petitioners case can be considered sympathetically, if the final result of the writ petitions are informed to the authority, which was accepted by the petitioners and in accordance with that, their case was considered sympathetically and respondent No. 2/RDA took a decision on 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12) & 23-2-1996 (Annexure P-15) and accordingly executed lease deed in favour of the petitioners on 28-2-1996 in respect of available land 66,000 sq.ft. (iv) Petitioners having accepted the decision of the respondent No. 2/RDA dated 13-2-1996 and had acted upon the said decision, the instant writ petition seeking writ for execution and registration of remaining subject land by respondent No. 2/RDA is not maintainable. (v) The writ petition suffers from delay and laches as the writ petition has been filed on 23-2-1999, as such, there is delay of three years in filing the writ petition, which has not been explained by the writ petitioners. 9. The following questions would arise for consideration of this Court : (i) Whether the petitioners have a enforceable and subsisting legal right in their favour to get the lease of remaining subject land from the respondent No. 2/RDA? (ii) Whether the writ petition as framed and filed suffers from delay and laches? 10. Upon hearing the learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of records, the following fact would emerge on the face of record : (i) That, in auction held on 24-5-1985 by respondent No. 2/RDA for the land situated at Devendra Nagar, Raipur admeasuring 1.08,000 sq. ft. was auctioned in favour of the petitioners @ 29.75 per sq.ft. and the petitioners deposited Rs. 8,03,250/- as earnest money as per terms and conditions of the auction and the balance amount was required to be deposited within 60 days from the date of acceptance of auction sale by the petitioners. (ii) As the petitioners did not deposit the said amount of Rs. 24,09,750/- within sixty days from the date of acceptance of auction sale, therefore, respondent No. 2/RDA forfeited the money (Rs. 8,03,250/-) deposited by the petitioners by order dated 10-9-1985. (ii) As the petitioners did not deposit the said amount of Rs. 24,09,750/- within sixty days from the date of acceptance of auction sale, therefore, respondent No. 2/RDA forfeited the money (Rs. 8,03,250/-) deposited by the petitioners by order dated 10-9-1985. Against which, the petitioners filed Misc. Petition No. 3360/2014 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. (iii) One Prakashchand Lunkad filed Misc. Petition No. 1464/1985 questioning the legality and validity of auction itself, in which, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by its order dated 23-5-1985, restrained the respondent No. 2/RDA from confirming the auction proceeding until further orders. (iv) That, pursuant to the representation made by petitioners on 5-6-1996 (Annexure P-7), respondent No. 2/RDA directed the petitioners to file documents with regard to final outcome of both the writ petitions. (v) Thereafter, on 31-10-1995, the respondent No. 2/RDA directed that the petitioners case can be sympathetically considered, if the writ petition filed by them is withdrawn. (vi) On 13-2-1996 the respondent No. 2/RDA took a final decision on the matter that area available in Plot No. 2 shall be registered at the accepted rate in favour of the petitioners after filing certified copy of the order of withdrawal of writ petition with the affidavit is filed by the petitioners. (vii) That, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition on 15-2-1996 and also filed affidavit accepting the terms of the decision of RDA/respondent No. 2 taken on 13-2-1996. (viii) That, finally by order dated 23-2-1996 the respondent No. 2/RDA informed the petitioners that 66,000/- sq. ft. of land is available on the plot No. 2 and after adjusting the earnest money and after making the balance amount of Rs. 11,60,250/-, lease deed can be executed in their favour; and on depositing the said amount lease deed was executed and registered in favour of the petitioners on 29-2-1996. (ix) That the petitioners filed instant writ petition on 23-2-1999 approximately after three years of execution of lease deed alleging that promise made by respondent No. 2/RDA by its communication dated 13-2-1996 is not being carried out by respondent No. 2/RDA and decided to make allotment of the remaining land of 42000 sq. ft. by fresh auction. Re-question No. 1 11. ft. by fresh auction. Re-question No. 1 11. From the facts emerging from the records as noticed hereinabove, it is quite vivid that initially in an auction sale held on 24-5-1985, subject land, was finally knocked down in favour of the petitioners; and the petitioners after depositing the requisite money, could not deposit the balance amount as per clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the auction resulting into forfeiture of the money deposited by the petitioners and the challenge made by way of writ petition came to be withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioners subject to considering their representations sympathetically by respondent No. 2/RDA. Once the writ petition challenging the forfeiture of the money deposit was withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioners from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2/RDA forfeiting the money deposited became final and the auction held and concluded in favour of the petitioners came to an end; and thereafter, neither order dated 10-9-1985 (Annexure P-5) forfeiting the earnest money was revoked by respondent No. 2/RDA, nor any decision was taken by the respondent No. 2/RDA holding that entire auctioned land will be leased out in favour of the petitioners except decision on 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12). 12. It is a case of the respondent No. 2/RDA that the petitioners representation dated 5-6-1995 (Annexure P-7) was considered by the Raipur Development Authority vide Annexure P-8 and it was informed that their representation can be considered sympathetically, if the decision taken in both the writ petitions are informed to RDA; and same was reiterated by respondent No. 2/RDA vide Annexure P-10 dated 31-10-1995; and ultimately the decision was taken by respondent No. 2/RDA on 13-2-1996 vide Annexure P-12, which states as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.....Ed.) 13. The aforesaid decision was accepted by the petitioners, which is apparent from their memo dated 16-2-1996 as the petitioners withdrew their writ petition No. 3360/1985 on 15-2-1996; and also executed an affidavit on 16-2-1996. Memo dated 16-2-1996 states as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.....Ed.) 14. The aforesaid decision was accepted by the petitioners, which is apparent from their memo dated 16-2-1996 as the petitioners withdrew their writ petition No. 3360/1985 on 15-2-1996; and also executed an affidavit on 16-2-1996. Memo dated 16-2-1996 states as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.....Ed.) 14. A conjoint reading of the decision of respondent No. 2/RDA dated 13-2-1996 and petitioners acceptance conveyed through its memo dated 16-2-1996 along with affidavit would show that respondent No. 2/RDA has clearly said that whatever area available in plot No. 2 would be leased out to the petitioners on auction accepted rate and the amount forfeited would be adjusted and lease deed would be executed upon withdrawal of the writ petition and above stated three conditions incorporated in the decision of the respondent No. 2/RDA, 13-2-1996 were accepted unconditionally, by the petitioners by filing their acceptance and swearing an affidavit as well by withdrawing the writ petition filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. 15. Since the decision of the respondent No. 2/RDA in terms of memo dated 13-2-1996 was accepted by the petitioners, then the respondent No. 2/RDA by its memo dated 23-2-1996 finally informed to the petitioners since they have already accepted the decision of the respondent No. 2/RDA and in the spot only 66,000/- sq. ft. land is available and after adjusting the money already deposited, the petitioners are required to make payment of Rs. 11,60,250/- and get the lease deed executed in their favour. Memo dated 23-2-1996 states as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.....Ed.) 16. The petitioners finally accepted the decision of respondent No. 2/RDA dated 23-2-1996 and deposited an amount of Rs. 11,60,250/- with respondent No. 2/RDA and ultimately the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioners on 29-2-1996, registering 66.000 sq. ft. of the land in favour of the petitioners in Devendra Nagar Scheme, Raipur for the period of 30 years. 17. As apparently, respondent No. 2/RDA executed and registered the lease deed in terms of the decision taken on 13-2-1996 in favour of the petitioners, thus the decision of the respondent No. 2/RDA taken on 13-2-1996 stands executed. ft. of the land in favour of the petitioners in Devendra Nagar Scheme, Raipur for the period of 30 years. 17. As apparently, respondent No. 2/RDA executed and registered the lease deed in terms of the decision taken on 13-2-1996 in favour of the petitioners, thus the decision of the respondent No. 2/RDA taken on 13-2-1996 stands executed. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that petitioners have filed this writ petition alleging that respondent No. 2/RDA is not fulfilling promise made on 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12) which is apparent from order-sheet recorded by this Court on 5-3-1999 while entertaining this writ petition, but while making final submissions petitioners have improved their case basing its right on auction held and concluded in their favour on 24-5-1985. It appears that the petitioners had also no grievance at all after registration of the lease deed, but thereafter, it appears that when the remaining land i.e. 42,000 sq. ft. came to be auctioned through advertisement in the month of November, 1998, petitioners made an objection on 30-11-1998 (Annexure P-20) stating that they are also entitled for the execution of lease deed of remaining land in their favour; and ultimately filed writ petition in the month of February, 1999. 18. Thus, it is held that earlier auction sale knocked down in favour of the petitioners of the subject land, came to an end upon forfeiture of the earnest money by order dated 10-9-1985, and against which, writ petition filed also came to be withdrawn unconditionally and, therefore, petitioners cannot enforce that contract, if any, that has already came to an end upon forfeiture of money deposited and withdrawal of writ petition filed against that and respondent No. 2/RDA had only promises to consider the representations of the petitioners sympathetically, accordingly representations were considered and decision was taken on 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12), which was accepted by the petitioners without any protest and demur and the lease deed has been executed that is available land i.e. 66,000 sq. ft. and, thereafter, the decision taken by the respondent No. 2/RDA stands executed upon the registration of the lease deed in favour of the petitioners on 28-2-1996 and, thereafter, the petitioners are not entitled for lease of remaining subject land as they cannot claim that they are entitled for the lease of 42,000 sq. ft. land on the basis of auction dated 24-5-1985. ft. land on the basis of auction dated 24-5-1985. Thus the question No. 1 is answered accordingly. Re-question No. 1 19. The determination of the above question brings me to the next question of delay and laches in filing the writ petition, the petitioners herein have made their claim on the basis of memo dated 13-2-1996 (Annexure P-12), which is quite appearent from the order sheet recorded by this Court on 5-3-1999, while entertaining this writ petition. Not only this, petitioners had no grievance at all apparently, as they filed writ petition as late as on 23-2-1999 i.e. approximately three years after the decision taken by respondent No. 2/RDA dated 13-2-1996 and duly accepted and acted upon by the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2/RDA. 20. In case of Delhi Administration v. Kaushilya Thakur (2012) 5 SCC 412 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2515 ), their Lordships of Supreme Court has held that writ petition filed after four years of rejection of application for allotment of a plot cannot be entertained and observed as under : ' 10. We have heard Shri H. P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Rishikesh, learned counsel for Respondent 1 and perused the record. In our view, the impugned order as also the one passed by the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside because while granting relief to the husband of respondent No. 1, the learned single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yd. plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, moreso because in the subsequent communication that authorities concerned had merely indicated that the decision contained in the first letter would stand. 11. It is trite law to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation (State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai)' ( AIR 1964 SC 1006 ). 21. 11. It is trite law to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation (State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai)' ( AIR 1964 SC 1006 ). 21. Extremely recently in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108 : ( AIR 2014 SC 1141 , Para 16), the Supreme Court has clearly held that delay may have impact on others ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, and expressed their opinion as under : '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 in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the 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 scrutinize 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 foregotten 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 scrutinize 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. 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.' 22. Bearing in mind, the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-stated decisions Delhi Administration ( AIR 2012 SC 2515 ) (supra), Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board (AIR 2014 SC 114) (supra), if the facts of the case are examined, it would appear that the decision was taken by the respondent No. 2/RDA on 13-2-1996 that area available in Plot No. 2 shall be leased out in favour of the petitioners on the accepted rate and upon the acceptance of that decisions by the petitioners lease deed was executed on 29-2-1996 by the respondent in their favour, whereas and the instant writ petition has been filed claiming subject land on 23-2-1999 and in the writ petition, the petitioners instead of explaining the delay in filing the writ petition, conveniently declared in paragraph four of the petition that there is no delay in filing the writ petition, as such petitioners have not made any endeavour to explain the inordinate delay of three years in filing the writ petition and as such, the delay in filing the writ petition is equally sufficient to deny the relief claimed in the writ petition. Thus the question No. 2 is answered accordingly. 23. Thus the question No. 2 is answered accordingly. 23. As a up-shot and the consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petition. 24. No order as to cost(s). Petition dismissed.