Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, Except When the Delay is Unreasonable: Bombay High Court Upholds the Principle of Limitation in Project Affected Person's Reinstatement Claim

The Bombay High Court, in a recent judgment delivered on March 11, 2025, in the matter of Shri Uday Laxman Pawar Versus The Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors., 2025:BHC-AS:11480-DB,  has reaffirmed the crucial legal principle that unexplained and inordinate delay in approaching the court can be a significant impediment to seeking legal remedies, even in cases involving claims of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) for employment and rehabilitation. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, decisively dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Pawar, emphasizing the doctrine of delay and laches as a fundamental bar to the maintainability of his claim.

The petitioner, claiming to be a PAP due to the acquisition of his father's agricultural land for a public irrigation scheme in 1975, sought to challenge a 1997 letter and a 2002 resolution by the Chiplun Nagar Parishad (Respondent No. 7) that denied him employment. Mr. Pawar's initial employment as a daily wage worker in the same Parishad in 1993 was short-lived, and despite obtaining a PAP certificate in 1996 and subsequently applying for reinstatement under the PAP scheme, his requests were rejected. Astonishingly, the writ petition seeking to overturn these decades-old decisions was filed only in the year 2024.

The State, represented by the learned AGP Ms. P. B. Chavan, raised a preliminary objection, rightly arguing that the petition was hopelessly barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 1997 and 2002. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Prakash Pawar, attempted to argue that the cause of action was continuing, citing repeated representations made to various authorities and a legal notice issued in 2024. However, the High Court firmly rejected this contention, relying on established jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, including Gattu Lal Vs. Gulab Singh, State of Tripura and Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty and Ors., and Union of India and Ors. Vs. M. K. Sarkar.

The Bench unequivocally stated that the period of limitation commences when the cause of action first arises, and mere representations, in the absence of a statutory provision for appeal, do not extend this period. The Court reasoned that allowing stale claims to be agitated after such a significant lapse of time would not only be contrary to the principles of law but could also unsettle the rights of third parties. The High Court explicitly noted that the Respondent No. 7 had already considered and rejected the petitioner's claim in 1997 and 2002, and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to seek legal recourse within a reasonable timeframe thereafter, which he failed to do.

Furthermore, the Court observed that at the time of filing the petition in 2024, the petitioner was 55 years old, exceeding the upper age limit of 45 years prescribed by a 2007 Government Resolution for recruitment of PAPs in Group-C and Group-D positions. While acknowledging the plenary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that the doctrine of delay and laches is a self-imposed restriction based on sound principles of equity and good governance, preventing the revival of stale and dead claims.

This judgment serves as a potent reminder that while the plight of Project Affected Persons warrants due consideration and adherence to rehabilitation policies, the legal system operates within a framework that necessitates timely action. The decision underscores the importance of diligent pursuit of legal remedies and cautions against the detrimental consequences of prolonged inaction, even in cases grounded in legitimate grievances. The Court's unwavering application of the doctrine of delay and laches reaffirms the principle that legal rights, however valid, cannot be indefinitely preserved at the expense of legal certainty and the avoidance of prejudice to others.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more

Unconstitutional Arrest: Vihan Kumar's Freedom Restored, Article 22(1) Violated, Police Fail to Communicate Grounds, Handcuffing in Hospital Condemned

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: VIHAAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA. Citation: 2025 INSC 162 (Reportable) Case Overview The Supreme Court of India heard the criminal appeal of Vihan Kumar against the State of Haryana, regarding his arrest in connection with FIR No. 121/2023 . The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest, alleging violations of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The court's ruling focused primarily on the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the appellant, deeming the arrest illegal. Factual Background Vihan Kumar was arrested on June 10, 2024 , in relation to an FIR concerning offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The appellant claimed his arrest occurred around 10:30 am, while the State claimed it was at 6:00 pm. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024 , at 3:30 pm. Aft...
Read more