Writ relief may be denied to fence-sitters who rely on a similar judgment after unexplained delay.

The petitioners claimed that their father, late Shyamkishore, was the recorded owner of ancestral agricultural lands at Village Amlori, Singrauli.

Following an inquiry, the Collector initiated suo motu revisional proceedings and declared the lands to be Government land.

The petitioners sought restoration of the land records in their names as Bhumiswamis, relying on relief granted in Smt. Sudha Tiwari and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, concerning adjacent lands.

The Court noted that the cause of action arose in 2014, but the petitioners approached it nearly 12 years later without explaining the delay.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to writ relief despite approaching the Court nearly 12 years after the cause of action arose, without explaining the delay.

2. Whether the relief granted in a similar case could be extended to the petitioners notwithstanding their delayed approach.

The Court applied the principles governing delay and laches in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Under Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, delay may justify refusal of relief where the applicant’s omission, considered with the lapse of time and surrounding circumstances, makes relief inequitable.

The Court also relied on A.P. SRTC v. N. Satyanarayana and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala for the principle that unexplained delay may defeat a writ claim, including where similarly situated persons obtained relief.

State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty confirms that relief granted to diligent litigants does not, by itself, explain another litigant’s delay.

The Court further cited Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K and Ashok Kumar v. District Magistrate, Basti on the discretionary nature of Article 226 relief and the effect of laches.

The Court found that the petitioners had not pursued their claim when the cause of action arose in 2014 and offered no explanation for waiting nearly 12 years to file the petition.

It characterized them as fence-sitters who had awaited the outcome of Smt. Sudha Tiwari and held that the benefit granted in that matter did not cure their delay.

Applying the equitable principles governing Article 226, the Court declined to entertain the stale claim.

The writ petition was dismissed on that ground, with no order as to costs.