( 2025:HHC:14754 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4384 of 2025 Decided on: 20.05.2025 Sh. Kamal Kishore .…Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 to 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral): By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce total record of the case; (ii) That the respondents No. 1 to 5 may kindly be directed to set aside and quash the allotment made in favour of the predecessor in interest of the respondents No. 6 to 16 being 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:14754 ) unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and malafide and the property mentioned above may kindly be ordered to be vested in the ownership of the respondent No. 1. (iii) That in case the property is to be transferred, public auction, tenders etc. may kindly be ordered to be properly made and floated, so that all the interested persons can bid to the purchase of the said property and declared to have vested right of Forest Government of H.P. (iv) That the respondent No. 2 be also directed to immediately pass necessary orders for correction of the revenue entries showing the respondents No. 6 to 16 to be owners in possession of property mentioned above. Any other suitable relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. When this case was listed on 13.05.2025, the following order was passed: - “…Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition is not maintainable, inter alia, on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be 3 ( 2025:HHC:14754 ) granted some time to assist the Court on this issue. As prayed for, list on 20.05.2025.” 3. Today, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. This Court reiterates that the present writ petition is grossly hit by delays and laches. The premise of the case is that land measuring 31-3 bighas, situated in Kasumpati (Koti), Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. was illegally allotted with malafide intent to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 6 to 16, i.e., late Sh. Jai Kishan alias Jai Dutt. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the land was allotted in the year 1970 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents, namely Sh. Jai Kishan alias Jai Dutt, who is no more. The petitioner claims to be the neighbour of late Sh. Jai Kishan and he himself is 74 years old in terms of the affidavit filed by the him in support of the writ petition, yet no cogent explanation has been given in the writ petition as to why the petitioner is challenging the allotment of land in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the private respondents after 55 years. The reasons given, as are spelled out in Para-10 of the writ petition, are as under:- “10. That the petitioner is having his house adjacent to the property in dispute and his entire sewerage line is going from the property mentioned hereinabove. He recently 4 ( 2025:HHC:14754 ) obtained various records qua the property, as to how and in what manner, the same is being shown in the names of respondents No. 6 to 16 and was surprised to notice the illegalities of the acts of respondents No. 1 to 5 and their officials, thereby causing grave loss to the public exchequer and public property.” 4. This Court is of the considered view that the averments made in Para-10 of the Writ Petition do not satisfy the Court on the issue of delay and laches. An allotment which was made 55 years back, that too, not in favour of the private respondents but in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, who is no more in this world, cannot be allowed to be assailed after 55 years, more so, when the person in whose favour the allotment was made is no more in the world to defend the allotment so made and challenge thereto by the petitioner. 5. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust Versus Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice is also of no benefit to the petitioner, because the judgment being relied upon by learned counsel relates to the 5 ( 2025:HHC:14754 ) issue of compensating the land owner whose land was acquired by the Government for public purpose. 6. Therefore, as the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to why this writ petition be entertained after 55 years from the date when the cause of action accrued and, more so, in the light of the fact that the person in whose favour the allotment was made is no more in this world, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 20, 2025 (bhupender)