Jitendra Kumar vs Nideshak (Karmik )

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86609
1 WP-16370-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16370 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010309982026
JITENDRA KUMAR
Versus
NIDESHAK (KARMIK ) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Anuradha Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner through VC.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - PL for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking employment and adequate
compensation in lieu of the land of the petitioner acquired by the respondents
authorities.
2. It is contended that the petitioner's land was acquired by the
respondents way back in the year 1994. It is submitted before this Court that
the petitioner was minor at that time, therefore, application could not have
been filed. As on date, the petitioner is 33 years of age. The document vide
Annexure-P/1 is the representation submitted on 22.1.2026. There is no
explanation for such a huge delay as even after attaining the majority, the
petitioner has slept over his right for a considerable long time and now, after
almost three decades of acquisition of the land of the petitioner by the
respondents, no relief can be extended to the petitioner in the writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:09:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86609
2 WP-16370-2026
3. In this context, a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court on the issue regarding delay and as to how, a Court of equity,
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot extend
its hands to such persons who approach the Court after several years can be
relied upon. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in several decisions
that stale claims ought not to be entertained by the High Courts exercising
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power
Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as
follows :

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be
borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise
their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may
refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such
negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to
assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of
time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the
opposite party. Even where fundamental right is
involved the matter is still within the discretion of the
Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports (1969) 1 SCC 185.
Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially
and reasonably.
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock
in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd
(1874) 5 PC 221 (PC at p. 239) was approved by this
Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [AIR 1967 SC
1450] and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular
Motor Service [AIR 1969 SC 329]. Sir Barnes had
stated:
“Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not
an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be
practically unjust to give a remedy either because the
party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly
be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by
his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not
waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a
situation in which it would not be reasonable to place
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:09:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86609
3 WP-16370-2026
him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in
either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most
material. But in every case, if an argument against
relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon
mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar
by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence
must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
Two circumstances always important in such cases are,
the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done
during the interval which might affect either party and
cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one
course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.”
5. In A.P. SRTC vs N. Satyanarayana reported in (2008) 1 SCC 210, it

is held as under :

10. Even on a bare reading of para 18 of the judgment
on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench, it is clear that the relief
was moulded to avoid anomalies and in view of the
peculiar situation involved. This Court categorically
held that the orders impugned in the appeals were not
sustainable because the writ petitions were filed after a
long lapse of time. Similar is the position here. The
regularisation was done w.e.f. 1-8-1987 and the writ
petitions were filed in the year 1999. That being so and
since in the writ petition without any explanation having
been offered for the delayed approach, writ petition
should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches.
6. In S.S. Balu vs State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479, it is
held as under :

17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay
defeats equity”. The Government Order was issued on
15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ
application questioning the legality and validity thereof.
Only after the writ petitions filed by others were
allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal
thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-
respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ
petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay,
reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground
of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:09:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86609
4 WP-16370-2026
similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the
benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to
issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the
Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In
NDMC v. Pan Singh (2007) 9 SCC 278 this Court held:
“16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot
be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ
petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their
grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did
not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest
possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves
as parties even in the reference made by the State before
the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after
1982, those employees who were employed or who
were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted
the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore,
the writ petitions could not have been entertained even
if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the
discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour
of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay
and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction.”


7. In State of Orissa vs Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC
436, it is observed thus :

54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention
that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay
and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court
after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court
in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper
explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake
up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the
judgment in cases where some diligent person had
approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See
Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356],
State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267
and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538).
8. In Ghulam Rasool Lone vs State of J&K reported in (2009) 15
SCC 321, it is held as follows :

19. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:09:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86609
5 WP-16370-2026
discretionary one. For sufficient or cogent reasons a
court may in a given case refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction; delay and laches being one of them. While
considering the question of delay and laches on the part
of the petitioner, the court must also consider the effect
thereof.

9. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar vs District Magistrate, Basti reported in (2012) 3 SCC 311 that :-

“10. … It is time and again, stated that a party who has
slept over his right since is not entitled to the
discretionary relief of the High Court.”
10. In the present case, as there is substantial delay in approaching the
Court which is unexplained by the petitioner, no relief can be extended to
him.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches. However, no order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:09:09