Delay and laches bar belated land proceedings where certified revenue entries remained undisturbed for decades.

A show cause notice concerning old land transactions was quashed because initiation after more than 35 years was held barred by delay and laches. The Court reiterated that even where an ordinance confers no express limitation period, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time, and stale proceedings cannot be started after an inordinate lapse when revenue entries have remained certified and undisturbed for decades. The alleged defect was not treated as a latent error justifying belated action, and the prior operation of the revenue process under the relevant procedure reinforced the jurisdictional bar. The notice was therefore beyond jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether initiation of proceedings and issuance of the show cause notice under the Ordinance after more than 35 years from the revenue entries was barred by delay and laches and therefore without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was to a show cause notice proposing action under sections 54 and 75 of the Ordinance in respect of old land transactions and certified revenue entries. The Court held that, where a statutory power has no express limitation, it must nevertheless be exercised within a reasonable period. Reliance was placed on settled principles that stale proceedings cannot be commenced after an inordinate lapse of time, especially where rights in the land have changed hands and the entries have remained undisturbed for decades. The Court also noted that the alleged defect could not be treated as a latent error so as to justify action after 35 years, particularly when the revenue process under section 135D and Rule 111 had already operated and the entries had been certified. In these circumstances, the initiation itself was treated as barred by delay and laches and therefore beyond jurisdiction. The Court also observed that the grievance of the original transferor's heir could not outweigh the jurisdictional infirmity in the initiation of proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, in favour of the appellants.

---