STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DIGAMBAR

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DIGAMBAR

Relief under Article 226 is discretionary and requires the petitioner to explain any undue delay or laches satisfactorily; the High Court's grant of compensation without properly considering the delay was unsustainable. Non-filing or failure in prior appeals/SLPs in similar matters does not bar this Court's wide...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA; Respondent: DIGAMBAR
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment in W.p. No. 3124 of 1991
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed; judgments in similar writ petitions also annulled.
Legal Topics
Writ Jurisdiction, Laches, Discretionary Relief, Compensation for Land Acquisition, Article 226, Article 136
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Writ Jurisdiction Laches Discretionary Relief Compensation for Land Acquisition Article 226 Article 136

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Appellant

DIGAMBAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment in W.p. No. 3124 of 1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether undue delay or laches disentitles grant of discretionary relief under Article 226 against the State for alleged deprivation of property without compensation
  2. 2 Whether non-filing of appeals or dismissal of SLPs in similar matters bars subsequent SLPs on the same issue

Ratio Decidendi

Relief under Article 226 is discretionary and requires the petitioner to explain any undue delay or laches satisfactorily; the High Court's grant of compensation without properly considering the delay was unsustainable. Non-filing or failure in prior appeals/SLPs in similar matters does not bar this Court's wide discretionary power under Article 136 to entertain appeals to remedy manifest injustice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed; judgments in similar writ petitions also annulled.

Orders

  • Judgment of Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3124 of 1991 set aside
  • Writ petition by respondent dismissed