2009 (1) TMI 904

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in respect of the land which was acquired. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: In the year 1971 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (in short 'MIDC') acquired about 1250 acres of agricultural land situated at four villages in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra. Thirty eight acres of land belonging to the appellant were acquired. It is the stand of the appellant that out of the acquired area, about 50% was under paddy cultivation and 25% was under cultivation of mango crops. In the appellant's land about 175 mango trees were there. In the year 1973, the Revenue and Forest Department of the Maharashtra Government passed a resolution inter-alia deciding to take steps in respect of surplus acquired land which re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....961 (in short the 'Act') the land should be restored. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was highly belated. 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was all through representing to the authorities and because of the recommendations by the Committee, the appellant waited for some time and ultimately when no worthwhile action was taken, he filed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court. 6. It is pointed out that the recommendations made in terms of the resolution were not accepted by the Government. It was decided that since definite policy has been formulated the land is to be util....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar Motor Service (AIR 1969 SC 329), Sir Barnes had stated: "Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, if founded upon mere delay, that delay of course no....