JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief: “"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this application, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order of cancellation of allotment of land vide No. JDA/Corrs/19/2007/1292 dated 07.01.2014 issued by the Respondent No.3, Jorhat Development Authority (at Annexure 11 to this petition) and subsequent letter vide No. JDA/Corrs/19/2007/1366 dated 21.03.2014 issued by the Respondent No.3, Jorhat Development Authority (at Annexure- 14 to this petition) and why the Certificate of Allotment of land vide No. JDA/RLDS/8/93/97/10 dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Respondent No.3 (at Annexure- 17 to this petition) and why the Deed of Sale dated 17.02.2016 (at Annexure- 19 to this petition) and the Order granting permission for construction of boundary wall dated 12.02.2018 (at Annexure- 20 to this petition) shall not be set aside and quashed and why the petitioner shall not be allowed to register the plot of land measuring 200 square meters (15 Lechas) covered by Dag No.1095, Patta No207 of Sonali Jayanti Nagar, village Bahatia, Mouza Saru chorai of Jorhat District with the Respondent No.3, Jerhat Development Authority as per the Sale Permission dated 07.03.2014 granted by the Respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat (at Annexure-13 to this petition) and after return of the Rule and upon such cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute giving full and complete relief to the petitioner and/or pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. -AND- Pending disposal of the Rule be pleased to direct the Respondents to maintain status-quo as regard possession of the land in question." 2. As per the facts projected, the Jorhat Development Authority (hereinafter JDA) had conducted a lottery for allotment of land in which the husband of the petitioner, who was working with the ONGC Jorhat, had participated. The said lottery was held on 15.11.1993 in which the husband of the petitioner was successful and was allotted an area of 200 square meters vide an order dated 13.12.1993. The said lottery was held on 15.11.1993 in which the husband of the petitioner was successful and was allotted an area of 200 square meters vide an order dated 13.12.1993. Along with the said order, there was a schedule of payment and as per the petitioner, the entire amount, as per the schedule was paid by 13.02.1995. Unfortunately, on 26.02.2005, the husband of the petitioner had passed away and the petitioner has claimed that she had executed an affidavit regarding the death of the husband and had submitted the same in the Office of the JDA and had also visited the office a number of times. On 19.11.2013, the petitioner had submitted an application for transfer of the land in which there was an endorsement by the Circle Officer on 11.12.2013 “may be allowed”. The petitioner had accordingly applied for Land Sale Permission and on 07.03.2014, the permission for sale of land was granted. The grievance of the petitioner is however with a communication dated 07.01.2014 issued by the Jorhat Development Authority by which the allotment was cancelled. It has been stated that as there was no response to the earlier letter dated 05.11.2012, the said cancellation was done. 3. The petitioner had replied to the Jorhat Development Authority by stating that the letter dated 05.11.2012 was addressed to her husband, who had passed away long time back in the year 2005. She had also submitted that the information of death of the husband was given to the authority long back. In the meantime, the plot in question was allotted to the Respondent No. 4 and all these actions are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Shri B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel. I have also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel for the Jorhat Development Authority as well as Shri U. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 5. Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 13.12.1993 were duly fulfilled by the husband of the petitioner during his lifetime. He has emphasized that the entire amount which were mentioned in the schedule were paid by 13.02.1995 and therefore there was no obligation remaining on the part of the husband, who was the allottee. 6. He has emphasized that the entire amount which were mentioned in the schedule were paid by 13.02.1995 and therefore there was no obligation remaining on the part of the husband, who was the allottee. 6. He has submitted that unfortunately after the death of the husband of the petitioner on 26.02.2005, there was certain communication gap. However, the fact of the death of her husband was duly intimated by means of letters as well as the affidavit executed. He has also emphasized the fact that the application for transfer of the land was duly endorsed by the Circle Officer on 11.12.2013 and thereafter the permission for sale was also granted on 07.03.2014. He has submitted that in view of the said development, it was wholly unreasonable on the part of the Jorhat Development Authority to issue the impugned letter dated 07.01.2014 informing cancellation of the allotment on the ground that the earlier letter dated 05.11.2012 was not responded to. The Senior Counsel has submitted that when the letter dated 05.11.2012 had come to light, it was seen that the letter was addressed to the deceased husband who had passed long time back in the year 2005 and therefore such letter had no meaning in the eyes of law. In any case, the petitioner had fulfilled the conditions of the allotment and therefore the cancellation could not have been done. It is also submitted that no disclosure has been made in the affidavit filed by the Jorhat Development Authority as to how the allotment was subsequently given to the Respondent No. 4 and accordingly he has termed the said action to be high-handed. 7. Per contra, Shri Goswami, the learned State Counsel for the JDA has submitted that the impugned order dated 07.01.2014 had to be issued as there was no response to the earlier communication dated 05.11.2012 which has not even been annexed to the writ petition. By drawing the attention of this Court to the earlier letter dated 05.11.2012, he has submitted that the petitioner could have responded to the aforesaid letter despite the fact that it was addressed to her husband. He has submitted that the JAD did not have the knowledge of the passing away of the husband of the petitioner as it was never intimated to them. He has submitted that the JAD did not have the knowledge of the passing away of the husband of the petitioner as it was never intimated to them. He therefore justifies issuance of the impugned letter dated 07.01.2014 whereby the allotment has been cancelled and also the action of the subsequent allotment to the Respondent No. 4. 8. Shri U. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the impugned action is wholly justified taking into consideration the facts and circumstances. It is submitted that the scheme for allotment of land was only to facilitate the needy people. He has submitted that though vide lottery, the plot of land was allotted to the husband of the petitioner on 15.11.1993, failure to take action by the petitioner would show that they were not in any need of the land. He has submitted that so far as the letter dated 20.01.2014 is concerned, there was an acknowledgement of the earlier letter dated 05.11.2012 by the petitioner in spite of which no steps were taken and therefore the cancellation order is fully justified. He has submitted that even the communication dated 21.03.2014 by which the application of the petitioner dated 21.01.2014 has been rejected is not the subject matter of challenge. He submits that his client had come into the picture only in the year 2016 and the petitioner was never diligent. He submits that the respondent no. 4 has deposited the amount in question of Rs. 3 lakh on 13.01.2016 and accordingly, the permission was granted by the authorities on 02.02.2016 and subsequently the Sale Deed has been executed on 17.02.2016 pursuant to which the mutation has been done followed by perfect partition. He has submitted that on 06.12.2016 the patta has been issued in favour of his client and his client is paying the land revenue. In 2018, the Jorhat Development Authority had granted permission for boundary wall and only when the construction activities were started, the dispute had begun. He has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as there has been concealment of material facts. He has also submitted that the petition is barred due to latches and delay. He has further submitted that the patta which has been issued to his client in the meantime has not been challenged. 9. He has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as there has been concealment of material facts. He has also submitted that the petition is barred due to latches and delay. He has further submitted that the patta which has been issued to his client in the meantime has not been challenged. 9. By drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in IA(C)/2098/2023, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that this Court had observed that the question of delay and laches would be kept open. 10 . In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. Vs T. T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . On the aspect of concealment of material facts, he has relied upon the decision of A. Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam reported in AIR 2012 SC 2010 11 . Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder has submitted that there was no delay or laches on the part of his client and everything has to be assessed from the facts and circumstances of each case. He has reiterated that the allotment process was complete on payment of the entire amount in the year 1995 and only because of the intervening unforeseen circumstance of the death of the husband of the petitioner in the year 2005, there has been certain lack of communication. He has also submitted that the impugned action is violative of the principles of the natural justice. 12 . The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined. 13 . It is not in dispute that the plot of land in question was allotted to the husband of the petitioner after a duly constituted lottery on 13.12.1993. It is further not in dispute that the entire amount which was mentioned in the schedule of payment was fulfilled by the husband of the petitioner by 13.02.1995. As noted above, the husband of the petitioner had expired on 26.02.2005, as a result of which, there appears to have been lack of communication. It is further not in dispute that the entire amount which was mentioned in the schedule of payment was fulfilled by the husband of the petitioner by 13.02.1995. As noted above, the husband of the petitioner had expired on 26.02.2005, as a result of which, there appears to have been lack of communication. However, the petitioner has contended that the fact of the death of her husband was informed to the JDA and in this regard, an affidavit was also executed. It also transpires that the application for transfer of the land was allowed by the Circle Officer on 11.12.2013 followed by permission for sale by the Competent Authority on 07.03.2014. Even if the aspect of not informing the JDA regarding the death of the husband which led to the delay in the transfer of the land and a sale permission is assumed, there is nothing on record to show that the procedure adopted by the JDA to initiate a cancellation process was done in accordance with law. Though it appears that the impugned order dated 07.01.2014 mentions a letter of 05.11.2012 which the petitioner has denied receipt, there is no dispute that the aforesaid letter dated 05.11.2012 was addressed to the husband of the petitioner, who had passed away long before in the year 2005. Therefore, such notice cannot be recognized in the eyes of law. The primary reason indicated in the impugned letter dated 07.01.2014 is that there was no response to the earlier letter dated 05.11.2012. The same cannot be a valid reason inasmuch as the aforesaid letter was issued to a dead person. In the contemporaneous period, the application for transfer of the land was allowed and even the permission for sale was allowed after the impugned order of cancellation. It clearly appears that there was no collaboration between the District Administration and the JDA. 14 . The contention of Respondent No. 4 is that he is a bona fide person who came into the picture in the year 2016 when the allotment order was already issued. Though the aspect of bona fide on the part of Respondent No. 4 may not come under cloud, it appears that the impugned order of cancellation dated 07.01.2014 was not preceded by the due process of law. The aspect that the respondent no. Though the aspect of bona fide on the part of Respondent No. 4 may not come under cloud, it appears that the impugned order of cancellation dated 07.01.2014 was not preceded by the due process of law. The aspect that the respondent no. 4 had made payments and subsequently the Sale Deed was executed followed by mutation and grant of patta would not be relevant inasmuch as the subsequent allotment of the land to the Respondent No.4 is not in accordance with law. 15 . The respondent no. 4 had strenuously contended that the writ is not maintainable, as there are concealment of facts. In the considered opinion of this Court, the concealment if any would only be towards receipt of the letter dated 05.11.2012. However, it is not in dispute that the said letter was addressed to the deceased husband of the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be held to be a material concealment. 16 . The aspect of laches and delay in approaching this Court which has been left open by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed in IA(C)/2098/2023 has also been considered. In proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not per se applicable, however, the jurisdiction exercised being equitable in nature, the aspect of laches would always be there. Such aspect of laches, however, is required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case. 17 . In the instant case, the petitioner is the widow of the original allottee, who was allotted the land in the year 1993 followed by payment of the full amount in the year 1995 itself. The original allottee had expired in the year 2005 leading to some lack of communication. However that by itself would not enable the JDA to cancel the allotment which was duly done. 18 . In view of the aforesaid discussion and the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that a case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2014 is set aside. Since the cancellation of allotment is set aside, all consequential actions taken by the JDA in respect of the subsequent allotment of the land to the respondent no. 4 becomes non est in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2014 is set aside. Since the cancellation of allotment is set aside, all consequential actions taken by the JDA in respect of the subsequent allotment of the land to the respondent no. 4 becomes non est in law. The petitioner would be at liberty to apply for completion of all other formalities regarding the land in question which the authorities would be obliged to consider and complete the same. 19 . No order as to cost.