Unexplained delay and laches bar writ relief sought decades after an alleged land allotment.

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent No. 2 authority to hand over physical possession of the subject plot and execute a registered deed of lease in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner relied on a memo dated 28 May 1984, allegedly allotting the land to her predecessor-in-interest subject to payment of salami and annual rent; receipts evidencing such payments were placed on record.

According to the petitioner, despite the allotment and payment, no registered lease deed was executed.

An earlier proceeding concerning the property had been instituted before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, where an injunction was initially granted and later vacated.

The petitioner claimed that she became aware of the allotment only after her marriage in 2008 and thereafter approached the High Court in the present writ petition, filed on 24 September 2025.

The State opposed the petition on the grounds that the dispute was civil in nature and that the memo neither specified a lease period nor established delivery of possession.

Whether the memo dated 28 May 1984 and the payment of salami and rent established an agreement obliging the respondent authority to execute a registered deed of lease for a specified period.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on account of delay and laches, the alleged cause of action having arisen in 1984 and the petition having been filed only in 2025.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to seek possession and execution of the lease deed through writ jurisdiction in respect of an essentially civil dispute.

Although no statutory limitation period ordinarily governs the filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ court may decline relief where the petitioner suffers from unexplained delay and laches.

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel execution of a lease deed unless a clear and enforceable legal obligation or concluded agreement to grant the lease is established.

Disputes involving civil rights, possession, and contractual or lease obligations may ordinarily require adjudication before the competent civil forum rather than through writ proceedings.

The Court accepted that the authority had made an allotment and that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest had paid salami and annual rent.

However, the memo dated 28 May 1984 did not demonstrate that the authority had agreed to execute a registered lease deed for any particular period, nor did the materials establish delivery of possession.

Consequently, the petitioner failed to prove a concluded or enforceable obligation capable of being enforced by mandamus.

Independently, the Court found that the allotment dated back to 1984, whereas the writ petition was filed on 24 September 2025.

The petitioner’s explanation based on her lack of knowledge after marriage in 2008 was not considered a cogent explanation for the prolonged delay, and the petition was therefore barred by laches in the discretionary writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

There was no order as to costs.

Certified copies were directed to be supplied on compliance with the requisite formalities.