A challenge to a land acquisition completed decades earlier is barred by delay and laches.

The petitioner claimed a 1/6 share in land at Mouza Piro, Plot No. 1731, inherited after its purchase by his family in 1967.

After seeking demarcation in 2019, he learned that the land had allegedly been used for an electricity sub-station without notice or compensation.

The State and the Power Company relied on acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: a declaration was issued in 1977, an award was determined in favour of the original owner, and the awarded amount was deposited in the treasury.

They also stated that a title suit and subsequent appeal concerning the acquisition had been dismissed.

The petitioner sought compensation and an order restraining interference with his rights except according to law.

Whether the petitioner could obtain relief concerning the acquisition and alleged non-payment of compensation despite the acquisition proceedings having concluded in 1977.

Whether the petitioner’s claim was barred by delay and laches.

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches, expressed in the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights.

It relied on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, paras 15–16, for the rule that delay is assessed by reference to the original cause of action; consideration of a stale claim does not revive it or erase delay and laches.

The acquisition was stated to have been conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court treated the petitioner’s claim as an attempt to challenge acquisition proceedings concluded in 1977, in which an award had been determined and the compensation amount deposited.

It held that the claim was stale and that the petitioner’s delay could not be overcome by seeking relief decades after the acquisition.

Applying M.K. Sarkar, the Court concluded that the claim was barred by delay and laches.

The Court dismissed the writ petition.