JUDGMENT G. S. Kulkarni, J. - This judgment is divided into the following parts to facilitate analysis: A. Prelude:- 1. About ten years back, a plot of land under a registered 'Deed of Transfer' was conveyed by the petitioner in favour of the Governor, State of Goa, to be utilised for an electricity sub-station. The petitioner now in the year 2022 asserts that the land cannot be retained by the State of Goa and should be reconveyed or re-transferred to the petitioner on various grounds including that the land was transferred under duress and coercion. 2. This is a petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has made a peculiar prayer, namely, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Department (respondent no.1) and the State of Goa through its Chief Secretary to 'reconvey and/or re-transfer' a plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq.mts situated in Survey no.35/1-part of Bambolim village in favour of the petitioner, by cancelling the Deed of Transfer dated 23 October 2012, registered before the Sub Registrar of Ilhas, Tiswadi, Goa. 3. The prayers are required to be noted which read thus:- a This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to reconvey/re-transfer the plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. situated in Survey no. 35/1(part) of Bambolim village in favour of the Petitioners which land was caused to be transferred to the Respondents vide said Deed of Transfer dated 23/10/2012 registered before the Sub Registrar of Ilhas, Tiswadi, Goa, bearing registration no. PNJ BK1 02811-2012, CD no. PNJD18 on 25/10/2012. b In the alternate, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction directing the Sub-Registrar of Tiswadi at Panaji to cancel the Deed of Transfer dated 23/10/2012 registered before the Sub Registrar of Ilhas, Tiswadi, Goa, bearing registration no. PNJ BKi 02811-2012, CD no. PNJD18 on 25/10/2012. (emphasis supplied) 4. By consent of the parties, heard finally. B. Facts :- 5. Factual antecedents as set out in the petition can be noted. The petitioner is the owner of a larger property situated at village Bambolim, Tiswadi Taluka, Goa. PNJ BKi 02811-2012, CD no. PNJD18 on 25/10/2012. (emphasis supplied) 4. By consent of the parties, heard finally. B. Facts :- 5. Factual antecedents as set out in the petition can be noted. The petitioner is the owner of a larger property situated at village Bambolim, Tiswadi Taluka, Goa. The petitioner had sought to develop the said property by constructing residential and commercial units. The petitioner's project is known as 'Aldeia de Goa'. 6. In undertaking such development and on its completion there was to be a substantial demand and consumption of electricity by the units within the project. After due consultation with the Electricity Department, the petitioner was informed by the electricity department that a new sub-station would be required to be put up inter alia for the supply of electricity to the petitioner's project. 7. It is the petitioner's case that after various meetings, the respondents insisted the petitioner to transfer and convey property admeasuring 1000 sq. mts. in favour of the respondents for the purpose of setting up a new 33 KV sub-station which would cater to the electricity needs of the petitioner, as also cater to the power supply in the surrounding area. It was decided that the land to be so transferred would be provided by the petitioner, free of cost and that the respondent would put up a sub-station and supply electricity. The petitioner has contended that as per the applicable law and as per the notification of Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy, dated 6 July 2012 published by the Government of Goa in the Official Gazette dated 12 July 2012, under the provisions of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electrical Supply Code) Regulations, 2010, the Petitioner was merely liable to provide the land for setting up a new 33KV sub-station and according to the petitioner, there was no need to transfer the ownership of the land to the respondents. 8. The petitioner contends that the respondents however 'coerced' the petitioner to transfer the land free of cost in their favour and the petitioner was required to concede to such illegal demand as made by the respondent. 9. The petitioner contends that on such backdrop, the petitioner vide 'Deed of Transfer' which according to the petitioner was entered under duress and coercion, transferred 1000 sq. 9. The petitioner contends that on such backdrop, the petitioner vide 'Deed of Transfer' which according to the petitioner was entered under duress and coercion, transferred 1000 sq. mt of land in favour of the respondent, solely for the purpose of setting up of 33KV sub-station for providing electricity supply to the petitioner's project- which included commercial and residential unit. The deed of transfer was duly registered with the Sub Registrar of Ilhas. It is stated by the petitioner that although the land was transferred in favour of the respondents in the year 2012, however, no steps were taken by the respondents to utilise the land for the purpose it was transferred. It is stated that also steps were not taken to carry out mutation, as also the possession of the property continued with the petitioner and physical possession was never handed over to the respondents. 10. It is the petitioner's case that all this period and till date the respondents have continued to supply electricity to the petitioner's project from the existing 33KV sub-station and for the purpose of which various other portions out of the petitioner's property have been used for setting up transformers to tap the electricity supply. The petitioner contends that till date, the respondents have not set up the 33 kv sub-station on the said land so transferred in favour of the respondents. Thus, as the respondents have not used the plot for the purpose for which it was transferred, it is the petitioner's case that it was necessary that the respondents reconvey the plot in favour of the petitioner. For such purpose, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 19 February 2021 to the respondents requesting to reconvey the said plot to the petitioner on the ground that it was illegally taken over and not utilized as also electricity was also supplied to the petitioner through transformers, set up at different places of the petitioner's property. 11. The petitioner contends that in any event, there was no requirement for the transfer of the plot free of cost to the respondents, however, no steps were taken by the respondents to reconvey the said property to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the transfer of the said plot in favour of the respondent amounts to an unjust enrichment. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the transfer of the said plot in favour of the respondent amounts to an unjust enrichment. The respondents cannot enrich themselves by illegally obtaining a transfer of the said property, free of cost. The transfer is therefore void and unconstitutional. It is also contended that without following due process of law, the property could not get conveyed by the respondents in their favour, which would be in violation of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution. The petitioner was forced to transfer the said property free of cost in favour of the respondents which is a wrongful exercise of power by the respondents. C. Reply Affidavit filed by the Respondents:- 12. The respondents have appeared and a reply affidavit has been filed denying the case of the petitioner. The preliminary contention of the respondents is that the petition itself is not maintainable as the disputes being raised in the present petition are disputes which involve an inquiry on disputed facts which can be gone into only in a proceedings of a civil suit, wherein the parties can lead their respective evidence in support of their contentions. It is submitted that in any event, there is no justification for filing belated proceedings inasmuch as the Deed of Transfer was executed way back on 23 October 2012 and the present petition has been filed on 29 January 2022, and that too under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is therefore contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole count of delay and laches. 13. It is next contended by the respondents that the petitioner's case that the respondents have illegally enriched themselves and forced the petitioner to transfer the said land in favour of the respondents is totally false. It is contented by the respondents that there was nothing illegal for the petitioner to transfer such a plot in favour of the respondents referring to clause 3.6(B) (11) of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy, dated 6 July 2012 notified in the Official Gazette dated 12 July 2012, notified under the provisions of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electrical Supply Code) Regulations 2010 which inter alia provides that the land/room required for housing the transformer shall be provided by developer/builder/society/consumer free of cost for which rent premium shall not be paid by the Department. 14. 14. It is stated by the respondents that the respondents inspected the said sub-station plot and on being satisfied that the same is adequate and proper for the purpose intended by them for installing a 33/11 KV sub-station for the area owned by the petitioner, which would cater to the power requirements of the petitioner, as also in the vicinity, of the area has agreed to accept the said plot. The respondents stated that there are space constraints for future expansion and as such, a new sub-station with adequate capacity is needed to feed power supply to the surrounding area and give relief to the existing Bambolim sub-station. It is stated that looking at the present scenario of the developments taking place and the increase of electricity load, the petitioner as also the surrounding areas would require an additional load of electricity in the future. It is stated that accordingly, a requirement for additional power sub-station is very much essential for the said area. It is stated that the land once entrusted to the Department in the interest of public utility cannot be claimed by the petitioner as the installation of the sub-station shall be beneficial to the petitioner and to the public at large. 15. Thus, as seen from the reply affidavit, the primary contention of the respondents is to the effect that the land has been transferred in favour of the respondent by the petitioner under a registered conveyance dated 23 October 2012, which is in conformity to Clause 11 of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy, dated 6 July 2012 published by the Government of Goa in the Official Gazette dated 12 July 2012, under the provisions of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electrical Supply Code)  Regulations, 2010. The contention on behalf of the respondent, is also that, looking at the present developments and increase of load in the said area, the petitioner's property as also the surrounding areas, would require additional load of electricity in the future. Thus, it is very much essential to have an additional sub-station for the surrounding area. It is accordingly contended that the land once entrusted to the Department in the interest of public utility, cannot be reclaimed/re-transferred by the petitioner, as installation of the sub-station shall be beneficial not only to the petitioner but to the public at large, as pleaded in paragraph 21 of the reply/affidavit. It is accordingly contended that the land once entrusted to the Department in the interest of public utility, cannot be reclaimed/re-transferred by the petitioner, as installation of the sub-station shall be beneficial not only to the petitioner but to the public at large, as pleaded in paragraph 21 of the reply/affidavit. It would be necessary to note relevant averments as contained in paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 28 of the reply affidavit which read thus:- '20. I say that there are space constrains at Bambolim sub station for future expansion, as such a new sub-station with adequate capacity has to be planned to feed power supply to the surrounding area and giving relief to the existing Bambolim Sub-station. 21. I say that looking at the present scenario of developments happening and increase of load in the said area, the Petitioner and the surrounding areas will require additional load of electricity in future. Accordingly, a requirement of additional power substation is very much essential and envisaged in the surrounding area. The land once entrusted to the Department in interest of public utility shall not be claimed by the Petitioner as the installation of a substation shall be beneficial to the Petitioner and to the public at large. 22. I say that as per the said Electrical Supply Code the Petitioner is required to provide the land for housing such transformer, sub-station and meters free of cost. Accordingly, the Petitioner and Respondent had arrived at an understanding that the Petitioner would transfer a plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq. mts. for setting up of sub-station in the area and accordingly a Deed of Transfer dated 23/10/2012 was executed. I say that the Petitioner otherwise has to provide the land free of cost to the Department of setting up of the sub-station which is very much required looking at the ever-increasing rise in load of electricity and provide some relief to the existing overburdened infrastructure. The land once entrusted to the Department in interest of public utility shall not be claimed by the Petitioner as the installation of a substation shall be beneficial to the Petitioner and to the public at large. So also because of the project of the petitioner, which is a commercial project, common man should not suffer.' 28. The land once entrusted to the Department in interest of public utility shall not be claimed by the Petitioner as the installation of a substation shall be beneficial to the Petitioner and to the public at large. So also because of the project of the petitioner, which is a commercial project, common man should not suffer.' 28. I say that the sub-station which is supposed to be set up in the plot of the Petitioner is required for extra high voltage 33 KV infrastructure for that area and the transformers which set up in the Petitioner's property are for the distribution of power at LT level so that electricity can be supplied to the residential and commercial units. A transformer is used to reduce the voltage from one level to another level without changing the frequency and distribute the load coming from the sub-station. I say that a new proposed sub-station in the Petitioner's plot will reduce the load at Bambolim sub-station thereby maintaining quality power supply and less interruption. I say that the proposed sub-station to be built in the said property is in the interest of public residing in the locality. The land once entrusted to the Department in interest of public utility shall not be claimed by the Petitioner as the installation of a Substation shall be beneficial to the petitioner and to the public at large.' 16. On the above case, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the Writ Petition be dismissed. D. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner:- 17. There is a rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to the reply affidavit as filed on behalf of the petitioner. The rejoinder affidavit reiterates the case of the petitioners as set out in the petition, in addition thereto, it is contended that in setting up the transformers, an additional area of the petitioner being an area of 615 sq. mts has been utilised by the respondents, having already provided the area of 1000 sq. mts under the deed of transfer. It is hence contended that there was no question of the said land although transferred under the deed of transfer being retained by the respondents and the same is required to be reverted to the petitioner. 18. On the above pleadings, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. E. Submissions of the petitioner:- 19. It is hence contended that there was no question of the said land although transferred under the deed of transfer being retained by the respondents and the same is required to be reverted to the petitioner. 18. On the above pleadings, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. E. Submissions of the petitioner:- 19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayers as made in the petition, would contend that the action of the respondents in inducing the petitioners to enter into a Deed of Transfer dated 23 October 2012 to transfer the plot in question in favour of the respondent is an illegal act on the part of the respondents amounting to unjust enrichment. It is also his submission that the action is illegal and is violative of the petitioner's right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. 20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such decision on the part of the respondents will be required to be held to be arbitrary and illegal and the plot of land is required to be reverted back to the petitioner as the same has not been utilised since its transfer. It is his submission that even the revenue record continues to exist in the petitioner's name, hence the land being not utilised for setting up the electrical sub-station for the benefit of the petitioner, it cannot be retained by the respondents. 21. It is his submission that the petitioner was bonafide made to believe that the plot would be used for setting up the electricity sub-station for the purpose of requirements of the petitioner, and in fact the petitioner's requirements was fulfilled by setting up transformers on the other land belonging to the petitioner, from which an additional area of 615 sq. mts has been utilised and, for such reason, there is no warrant in the respondents retaining the petitioner's land, by not utilising it for the purpose for which it was transferred. 22. It is submitted that Rule 11 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy Rules also would go to show that respondents cannot seek a transfer of the said land on ownership basis even for putting up a sub-station and hence, there is no statutory mandate for the respondents to justify the Deed of Transfer of the said land in their favour. It is his submission that once the law itself does not make it obligatory that the land be transferred in favour of the respondents, in that event, the Deed of Transfer is required to be held as illegal. It is for this reason, that the land necessarily is required to be reverted back to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in any event there is no utility of the land to the respondents, inasmuch as, already the transformers are put up in the larger property of the petitioner for which petitioner's land admeasuring 615 sq.mts has been utilised. It is hence his contention that as electricity requirements are fulfilled by installation of the transformers, there is no requirement of the petitioner's land, subject matter of Deed of Transfer, being used also in the future. For such reason, there is no justification by the respondents to keep such land. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that retaining the petitioner's land would certainly constitute unjust enrichment. 23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contention as urged on behalf of the respondents in reply/affidavit that a Writ Petition for such a prayer is untenable. He submits that respondent no.2 is the State of Goa and the issue in question in the petition pertains to the action of the 'State' falling within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, thus, even in the contractual sphere where the parties have contracted with the State, the Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue an appropriate writ, if it is found that the action of the State is arbitrary, illegal and violatory of the provisions of the Constitution and the laws. 24. In support of above submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:- 1. Mahabir Auto Stores and ors Vs Indian Oil Corporation and ors., (1990) 3 SCC 752 . 2. Reliance Energy Ltd. And ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and ors., (2007) 8 SCC 1 . 3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs Union of India and ors., (2011) 8 SCC 161 . 4. Union of India and ors. Vs Dhanwanti Devi and ors., (1996) 6 SCC 44 . 5. Unitech Limited and ors. 2. Reliance Energy Ltd. And ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and ors., (2007) 8 SCC 1 . 3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs Union of India and ors., (2011) 8 SCC 161 . 4. Union of India and ors. Vs Dhanwanti Devi and ors., (1996) 6 SCC 44 . 5. Unitech Limited and ors. Vs Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and ors., (2021) SCC online 99. 6. PT. Chet Ram Vashist Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995(1) SCC 47 . 7. M/s Cosmos Realtors Vs The Municipal Corporation f the City of Thane and ors., 2019 SCC online Bom 1486. F. Submissions of the respondents:- 25. On the other hand, Mr. Pangam, learned Advocate General along with Mr. P. Arolkar, appearing for the respondents in opposing the petition, at the outset, would submit that the petition is per se not maintainable as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside a registered conveyance of land, would not be maintainable, as such rights being asserted by the petitioner, are not the rights which could be espoused taking recourse to a public law remedy. 26. Mr. Pangam would next submit that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief also for the reason that transfer of land in favour of the respondents was for dual purposes, firstly, for achieving benefits to the larger property of the petitioner where a residential as well as commercial township has been set up by the petitioner and which certainly requires electricity supply and secondly, for the benefit of the surrounding area. It is his submission that under the Deed of Transfer dated 23 October 2012 by which the land is transferred in favour of respondents, the land is to be utilised not only for the purposes of the petitioner but also for the benefit of the areas in the vicinity. He submits that such transfer being voluntarily made, there is no question of the petitioner now turning its back and re-claiming the land by seeking an annulment of the Deed of Transfer. 27. Mr. Pangam has submitted that the basis for such transfer was very much available under clause 11 of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy Rules, which itself has not been challenged by the petitioner. Mr. 27. Mr. Pangam has submitted that the basis for such transfer was very much available under clause 11 of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy Rules, which itself has not been challenged by the petitioner. Mr. Pangam, submits that clause 11 of the Rules clearly provides that land/room required for housing the transformer sub- station and meters shall be provided by the developers, builders free of costs for which rent or premium shall not be paid by department. It is his submission that once under the statutory provisions, the said land came to be transferred in favour of the respondents and without such law being declared to be illegal, the petitioner would not have a legal right to seek restoration of land and that too by seeking orders in a Writ Petition. 28. Mr. Pangam has next submitted that the basic contention of the petitioner is that land has been transferred without a utility/purpose, itself is unfounded, for the reason that if a larger township of the petitioner was not to come up in such area, there would not have been any requirement of handling additional load of power requirements. It is submitted that although the previous requirements of electricity supply for the petitioner are fulfilled, however, the land in question is certainly required for setting up a sub-station as considering the already existing load would make the present infrastructure insufficient for the future which needs to be catered to and for which a new sub-station would be required to be set up. It is his submission that it is incorrect for the petitioner to contend that the respondents have no plan to utilise the land in future for setting up the sub-station being the purpose for which the said land was transferred by the petitioner in favour of the respondents. 29. Mr. Pangam's next submission is that, in any event, the petition needs to fail, for the reason that such a relief would not be available to the petitioner even if the petitioner was to file a Civil Suit, as the Civil Suit, if was to be filed, itself would be ex-facie barred by the law of limitation. It is submitted that if this Court being called upon to exercise writ jurisdiction, the petition is even otherwise ex-facie barred by the principles of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed. It is submitted that if this Court being called upon to exercise writ jurisdiction, the petition is even otherwise ex-facie barred by the principles of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed. G. Reasons and Conclusion:- 30. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance we have perused the record. 31. At the outset, we may state that the relief as prayed for in the present petition is primarily a relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to reconvey/re-transfer the plot of land in question in favour of the Petitioner as transferred to the respondent under a registered Deed of Transfer dated 23 October 2012. Thus, ex- facie, such relief pertains to the petitioner asserting its rights qua the land as transferred to the respondents under the Deed of Transfer dated 23 October 2012, which is by itself a contract between the parties. Such relief presupposes an annulment of the said Deed of Transfer in the absence of such annulment of the said document, a reconveyance of the said land cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. 32. Before we embark to consider the principal issue, we may refer to some relevant clauses in the Deed of Transfer entered between the parties, namely, between and the Governor of the State of Goa and the petitioner which reads thus:- 'B The Transferors are in the process of developing the above larger property by constructing hereon various residential and other units for sale for prospective purchasers thereof including sub-division of land of the said larger property into plots of various dimension and areas as may in a phased manner as may be determined by the transferors and duly permitted by the authorities concerned from time to time with statutory amenities, facilities, internal roads, open spaces and other necessary statutory requirements for approval of such development scheme by the authorities concerned and have named the Development Scheme as 'Aldeia De Goa'. C The Transferors have already completed Phase I of the aforesaid Development scheme consisting of sub-divided sub-plots in the part of the said larger property bearing survey No.31/1-A for which the Sale Deed and Conveyance of plots have already been carried out . C The Transferors have already completed Phase I of the aforesaid Development scheme consisting of sub-divided sub-plots in the part of the said larger property bearing survey No.31/1-A for which the Sale Deed and Conveyance of plots have already been carried out . D The Transferors have also completed Phase II of the said development scheme in the part of said larger property having survey nos.15/1, 16/1, 35/1, 17/3, 19/2, 20/2, 21/1, 21/3, 21/5, 14/1, 19/3, 17/2, 18/1, 19/1, 20/1, 21/2, 20/3, 21/4, 21/6, 21/7 and 21/8 of different separate properties purchased under six Deeds of Sale and Conveyance, totally admeasuring 1,80,750 sq.mtrs fully mentioned and described in the Schedule I hereunder written hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the said property' G The Transferee is providing power supply to the said development scheme of the Transferors, and being in need of piece or parcel of land in order to install a 33kv sub station in the locality to provide power supply in the surrounding area including the development scheme of the Transferors have approached the Transferors with a request to provide necessary piece or parcel of land conveniently located within the area of the said property of the Transferors more specifically located within the survey no. 35/1 of village Bambolim Taluka Tiswadi Goa admeasuring 1000 sq.mtrs area as fully mentioned and described in Schedule II hereunder written and shown in the plan annexed hereto in red outline of the said survey no.35/1 hereinafter referred to as the 'said sub station plot'. I The Transferors have consented to provide to the transferee such piece or parcel of land free of cost to the Transferee as it would be in the interest and to the advantage of the Transferors to obtain regular power supply in the area including the development scheme of the Transferors. J. The Transferees have inspected the said 'Sub Station Plot' and have satisfied themselves that the same is adequate and proper for the purpose intended by them the Transferee and have also expressed their appreciation for the generosity of the Transferors in helping the authorities to carry out their public duty. 1. J. The Transferees have inspected the said 'Sub Station Plot' and have satisfied themselves that the same is adequate and proper for the purpose intended by them the Transferee and have also expressed their appreciation for the generosity of the Transferors in helping the authorities to carry out their public duty. 1. That in pursuance of the request of the Transferee and the consent of the Transferors and in consideration of the advantage and benefit of having a sub station located within the development scheme of the Transferors, the Transferors do hereby grant, convey, transfer and assign free of cost without consideration and free from encumbrances, charges, liens, claims and demands of whatsoever nature, and forever by way of transfer to the Transferee the said 'Sub Station Plot' admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs situated in survey No. 35/1 of Village Bambolim, Taluka Tiswadi Goa, fully mentioned and described in detail in Schedule II 'hereunder written and shown in the plan of survey no. 35/1 of Village Bambolim Taluka Tiswadi Goa Annexed hereto for installing thereon solely and specifically an Electric Sub Station with necessary structure to enable the Electricity Department to supply regular power supply in the area within which the development scheme of the Transferors is located together with all and singular areas, ways, paths, passages, waters, water courses, ditches, plants, trees, liberties, easements, profits, privileges, advantages, rights, members and appurtenances whatsoever to the said 'Sub Station Plot' belonging or in any way