https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419279 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable where the relief sought was in substance specific performance of a contractual promise for allotment of land. The proper remedy lay in a civil suit, and on the stated facts even that remedy would have been time-barred. The claim was also rejected as stale because it was raised nearly a decade after execution of the sale deed and the belated writ was filed after further delay. A subsequent representation, or its rejection, did not extend limitation, cure laches, or create a fresh cause of action. The Court declined relief and upheld dismissal of the writ petition. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Mar 2022 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419279 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable where the relief sought was in substance specific performance of a contractual promise for allotment of land. The proper remedy lay in a civil suit, and on the stated facts even that remedy would have been time-barred. The claim was also rejected as stale because it was raised nearly a decade after execution of the sale deed and the belated writ was filed after further delay. A subsequent representation, or its rejection, did not extend limitation, cure laches, or create a fresh cause of action. The Court declined relief and upheld dismissal of the writ petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419279