Delay and laches bar alternative plot claims when ownership of the specific acquired land is not proved.

A belated Article 226 claim for alternative plot allotment is ordinarily barred by delay and laches where no fresh cause of action arises from repeated representations. The claimant's writ also failed on merits because the sale deed covered different khasra numbers and receipt of compensation did not establish ownership of the specific acquired land. In the absence of clear proof of title to the land identified in the allotment request, no mandamus for alternative allotment could be issued. The writ petition therefore failed both on limitation principles and on the absence of proof of ownership.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition seeking allotment of an alternative plot was barred by delay and laches. (ii) Whether the claimant had established ownership of the land claimed for allotment and was therefore entitled to the benefit of the alternative plot policy.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition seeking allotment of an alternative plot was barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The claim for allotment was rejected in 1989, while the writ petition was filed after about four years. Subsequent representations did not furnish a fresh cause of action, because they merely reiterated the earlier rejection. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stale claims cannot ordinarily be entertained unless delay is satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by delay and laches and the writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimant had established ownership of the land claimed for allotment and was therefore entitled to the benefit of the alternative plot policy.

Analysis: The sale deed relied upon by the claimant showed purchase of land in Khasra Nos. 166, 167 and 168, not Khasra No. 70/2. Receipt of compensation, including enhanced compensation, did not by itself establish ownership of Khasra No. 70/2. In the absence of tangible proof of ownership of the land mentioned in the allotment application, no mandamus for allotment could be issued.

Conclusion: The claimant had not proved ownership of Khasra No. 70/2 and was not entitled to allotment of an alternative plot.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the High Court were unsustainable and the writ petition failed both on delay and on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated writ claim for discretionary relief under Article 226 is liable to fail on laches, and an alternative allotment cannot be claimed without clear proof of ownership of the specific acquired land.

---