Introduction: This case analysis pertains to a legal matter involving delay in seeking relief and concealment of material facts in a writ petition. The respondents had filed a writ petition after a significant delay of 46 years from the finalization of the record of rights. Additionally, they had not disclosed the filing and subsequent withdrawal of a civil suit claiming the same relief. The court examined the applicability of constructive res judicata and the maintainability of the writ petition based on these factors.

Summary:

The case involved a delay of 46 years in filing the writ petition after the finalization of the record of rights, which the court deemed highly belated. The respondents had multiple opportunities to seek appropriate remedies, including filing objections before the finalization of the record of rights, filing for revision within one year, and filing a civil suit. However, they failed to avail of these remedies effectively.

The court also considered the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the withdrawal of the civil suit without the liberty to file a fresh one. Referring to the principle of constructive res judicata, the court concluded that the respondents’ writ petition was not maintainable and should not have been entertained. The respondents should have disclosed the complete facts, including the filing and withdrawal of the civil suit, while justifying the filing of the writ petition.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that mere notings in government files cannot be relied upon as orders unless communicated to the concerned party. In this case, there was no formal order from the government conveyed to the respondents regarding land allotment, rendering their claim baseless.

Conclusion:

Based on the analysis, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. The respondents were not entitled to any relief due to the significant delay in seeking remedies, concealment of material facts, and the absence of a formal order from the government regarding land allotment.

State of Orissa & anr. … Appellants
Versus
Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead)
thr. LRs & ors.
… Respondents……………….. decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 12, 2023.

By aor.sanjivnarang@gmail.com

Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.