https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173769 Delay and laches under Article 226 are a discretionary bar, not an absolute one; the writ challenge was maintainable because the petitioner acted after discovering the diversion of the acquired land and the delay was satisfactorily explained. Acquisition for a declared public purpose, followed by transfer or lease of substantial portions to private parties for private benefit, was treated as a fraudulent exercise of the power of eminent domain. The court accepted that such diversion vitiated the acquisition to that extent and entitled the respondent to restoration of the land, subject to consequential compliance. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173769 Delay and laches under Article 226 are a discretionary bar, not an absolute one; the writ challenge was maintainable because the petitioner acted after discovering the diversion of the acquired land and the delay was satisfactorily explained. Acquisition for a declared public purpose, followed by transfer or lease of substantial portions to private parties for private benefit, was treated as a fraudulent exercise of the power of eminent domain. The court accepted that such diversion vitiated the acquisition to that extent and entitled the respondent to restoration of the land, subject to consequential compliance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173769