Supreme Court of India
State Of Maharashtra vs Additional Commissioner And Others on 12 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, SUPL. (2) 568, AIRONLINE 1993 SC 325, 1994 SCC (SUPP) 2 568, 1997 (11) SCC 564, (1997) 21 ALLCRIR 858, (1997) 2 CRICJ 289, (1997) 2 EASTCRIC 768, (1997) 35 ALLCRIC 379, (1997) 3 ALLCRILR 812, (1997) 3 CRIMES 200, (1997) 3 CURCRIR 119, (1997) 5 SCALE 487, (1997) 7 JT 408 (SC), (1997) 7 SUPREME 362, 1997 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 540, 1997 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 628, 1997 CRILR(SC&MP) 628, 1997 UP CRIR 595, (1998) 2 RECCRIR 155, 1998 SCC (CRI) 199, (1998) SC CR R 112
Author: S. Mohan
Bench: S. Mohan, S.P Bharucha
PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT12/10/1993 BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 568 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. The State of Maharashtra is the appellant before us. When Respondents 2 and 3 filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of their property they sought inclusion of additional land as appurtenance in respect of 23 structures at the rate of 500 sq. metres per structure. That request was disallowed. Thereupon, an appeal was preferred to the first respondent. By an order dated March 25, 1985, he allowed additional land as appurtenance at the flat rate of 500 sq. metres in respect of the 23 structures belonging to Respondents 2 and 3. Questioning the correctness of this order the State filed a writ petition on December 24, 1986. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches and on the ground that in the interregnums the rights of third parties had come to be intervened. An appeal was preferred before the Division Bench which was also dismissed.
1 (1980) 1 SCC 416: AIR 1980 SC 1008 569
2. In this appeal before us it is argued having regard to the ruling in G. Ramegowda v. S.L.A. Officer1 the High Court ought to have taken a liberal view with regard to laches as otherwise public interest will suffer. This is the only argument advanced before us.
3. We do not think the principle laid down in the ruling referred to could be applied in respect of all cases. In this case we are fully satisfied that the appellant is guilty of laches. Further, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the rights of third parties have intervened. Accordingly, this appeal will stand dismissed without any order as to costs.
570