Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Anju Babel on 11 February, 2026
(1 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20730/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Land Holder Tehsildar Bagdaon,
District-Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Anju Babel W/o Shri Bharatji Babel, Resident Of
109/7-B, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.
2. Shri Bharat Babel S/o Shri Harisingh Babel, Resident Of
109/7-B, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, Govt. Counsel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saheeram Mundel
Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
11/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers :
“i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2019
(Annexure-03) passed by the learned Board of Revenue,
Ajmer in revision no./LR/8241/2018/Udaipur; M/s Praveen
Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan, may kindly be declared
illegal and be quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order
dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure-01), passed by the District
Collector, Udaipur as well as judgment and order dated
09.10.2018 (Annexure-02), passed by the Land Settlement
Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in appeal
no.16/2017, may kindly be upheld or confirm.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(2 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner.
2. Explaining the facts of the present case, it is stated that the
District Collector (Industry), Udaipur vide its order dated
27.11.1982 under Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules,
1959 (for short ‘Rules of 1959’) has allotted land of Araji No.655,
ad measuring Rakba 2 Bigha and 10 Biswa (land in question) to
M/s. Praveen Enterprises for industrial purpose.
2.1 It is stated that although there was a specific condition in the
allotment letter to utilise the land for industrial purpose within a
period of two years from the date of allotment, however, the same
was not being done by the petitioner hence, notices were issued to
the allottee – M/s. Praveen Enterprises.
2.2 Further, upon the application of the allottee, the District
Collector, Udaipur vide its order dated 04.04.1989 has granted
extension of time for utilisation of the land.
3. It is also stated that on 16.08.2016, an inspection report was
prepared by the Tehsildar, Girva stating therein that the land in
question is covered by a boundary wall and some marble slabs
were found lying in the allotted land. Inspection report also
mentions that the conditions incorporated in the allotment letter
are not complied with by the allottee.
2.3 On the basis of such report, a notice was issued by the
Tehsildar, Girva on 15.09.2016 and after granting opportunity of
hearing, the District Collector, Udaipur vide its order dated
01.03.2017 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the
respondent M/s Praveen Enterprises.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(3 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
2.4 Challenging the said order of cancellation of allotment, an
appeal was filed before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority,
Udaipur and the said appeal was also rejected vide order dated
09.10.2018.
2.5 The order dated 01.03.2017 so also the judgment dated
09.10.2018 were challenged before the learned Board of Revenue
by way of filing the revision petition. The learned Board of
Revenue vide its judgment dated 31.07.2019 allowed the said
revision petition and quashed and set aside the order dated
01.03.2017 as well as the order dated 09.10.2018.
2.6 Challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2019, the present
writ petition has been filed.
3. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S. R. Paliwal, stated
that the order impugned is absolutely erroneous and unjustified
and the findings recorded therein are perverse.
3.1 It is stated that violation of conditions of the allotment has
resulted in termination of the allotment order, but same was not
considered by the learned Board of Revenue.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that valuable
industrial area has been kept unutilised by the respondent-allottee
for more than three decades, therefore, the cancellation of
allotment by the District Collector, Udaipur was illegally justified.
3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the findings of
the learned Board of Revenue are perverse as the same are
running contrary to the inspection report prepared by Tehsildar,
Girva, thus, not sustainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised
preliminary objection about maintainability of the present writ
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(4 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is stated that order
impugned was passed on 31.07.2019, however, the same has
been challenged by the petitioner after a gross delay of six years
without any justification.
4.1 Learned counsel for respondents also states that findings
recorded by learned Board of Revenue is absolutely justified and
based upon the documentary evidences regarding establishment
and running of industrial activities over the land in question hence,
the same cannot be said to be perverse.
4.2 While placing reliance upon the documents such as the
inspection report forwarded by the District Industrial Center,
electricity bills, documents relating to Income Tax Department and
photographs of the Industry in question, it is stated that the land
in question has already been put to use for industrial purpose and
the cancellation of allotment was not at all justified.
4.3 Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the scope of
interference before this Court is very much limited and since the
order impugned does not suffer from any error, the interference of
this Court is not warranted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This Court deems it appropriate to first deal with the
preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent.
Admittedly, the order impugned is of July, 2019 whereas, the
present writ petition has been filed in the month of October, 2025
i.e. after lapse of more than six years. A reading of memo of writ
petition shows that no justification, even for namesake for the
delay in filing the writ petition has been mentioned.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(5 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
6.1 The law with regard to the delay and laches is no more res-
integra and it is well-settled that even if no period of limitation is
provided for filing a writ petition, the same is required to be filed
in a reasonable time. Excessive or inordinate delay in filing the
writ petition deprives the petitioner of any relief from the court.
6.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda
Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215 opined that inordinate delay or
laches defeats equity. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
herein below:
“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of
the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the
considered view that the writ petitioner ought to have
been non-suited or in other words the writ petition ought
to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches
itself. An applicant who approaches the court
belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for
a considerable period of time, wakes up from his
deep slumber ought not to be granted the
extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court
time and again has held that delay defeats equity.
Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be
borne in mind by the High Court while exercising
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court
may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on
the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the
cause of action to drift away and attempts are made
subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that
no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However,
when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court
is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a
reasonable time same has been invoked and even
submitting of memorials would not revive the dead
cause of action or resurrect the cause of action
which has had a natural death. In such circumstances
on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought
to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If
it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and
laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on
that sole ground itself, inasmuch as the writ courts are not
to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take
advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there
cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(6 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into
consideration the delay and laches on the part of the
applicant in approaching a writ court.”
6.3 The Hon’ble Courts, in a catena of authoritative
pronouncements, have consistently held that where a writ in the
nature of certiorari is prayed for challenging an order passed by a
Civil Court, Revenue Court, or any quasi-judicial authority, such
petition is required to be filed within a reasonable period, which
has generally been construed to be up to ninety days.
6.4 However, in the present case, it is an admitted position that
the writ petition has been instituted after an inordinate delay of
nearly six years. Significantly, the petitioners have neither offered
any explanation nor furnished any satisfactory justification for
such enormous delay. The writ petition, therefore, suffers from
gross laches and is not worthy of consideration on merits.
6.5 This Hon’ble High Court in Noor Khan v. Board of
Revenue, 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 8037 held that excessive or
inordinate delay in filing the writ petition disentitles the petitioner
of any relief from the court. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
herein below:
“10. Indisputably, assailing the legality of order dated
24.8.93 passed by the Board of Revenue, the present writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 6
years. It is pertinent to note that in the petition filed, the
order impugned dated 24.8.93 has been referred to as
dated ‘24.8.98’ and the petitioner has furnished the
explanation of delay for the period February, 1999 to
31.8.1999 and therefore, it goes without saying that the
petitioner was well aware that inordinate delay in filing the
petition is required to be explained satisfactorily.
However, no explanation whatsoever is set out in
the petition for inordinate delay of six years in filing
the petition. In the considered opinion of this court,
if aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner
was required to approach this court with utmost
expedition and thus, the present writ petition which
badly suffers from vice of delay and laches, deserves(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(7 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]to be dismissed on this count alone. However, taking
into consideration the fact that writ petition already stands
admitted and is pending consideration for all these years,
in the interest of justice, this court considers it appropriate
to examine the case set out by the petitioner on merits.”
6.6 In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be
rejected solely on the ground of delay in filing the same.
7. This Court has also heard the learned counsel for the parties
on merits and from bare perusal of the order impugned dated
31.07.2019, it is revealed that the learned Board of Revenue has
clearly observed that as a matter of fact in an inspection report
prepared in the year 2003, the industry of the respondents was
found to be operational and it was clearly mentioned in the said
report that required machinery i.e. DG set, water tank etc., were
found established upon the land in question.
7.1 Learned Board of Revenue has also recorded the fact that
even the learned Divisional Commissioner has clearly noted that
since the industry is already operational there is no requirement of
extension of time.
7.2 Learned Board of Revenue has taken into consideration the
electricity bills, balance-sheets, documents relating to Income Tax
Department so also relates to commercial taxes and purchase bills
of machinery and other inventories. On the basis of said
documents, learned Board of Revenue has recorded a clear finding
that since an industry has established and found operational,
there was no justification available with the District Collector,
Udaipur to cancel the allotment made way back in the year 1983.
7.3 The findings recorded and conclusion drawn by the learned
Board of Revenue are based upon proper reasoning and due
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(8 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
appreciation of evidence available on record, thus, does not call
for interference of this Court.
7.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish any
perversity, manifest illegality, error apparent on the face of record,
or any jurisdictional error being committed by the learned Board
of Revenue in passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2019.
8. The scope of interference by this Court under its supervisory
jurisdiction is very limited. The contours of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India have well being delineated ad nauseum and
reference may be made for the purpose to some salutary
pronouncements such as Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra
Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329. Jai Singh v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram
Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 – instead of burdening this
judgment with copious quotes therefrom. It has been broadly held
therein that the interlocutory orders of the courts below not be
interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
unless such orders are palpably vitiated by capriciousness,
perversity, error of jurisdiction or such like root causes leading to
manifest injustice. The amendment to Section 115 of the CPC,
effective from 01.07.2002 by virtue of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999, was intended as a remedial measure to
address the notorious delays in the trial of civil suits, which have
been widely criticized. The salutary provisions of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be casually invoked to
circumvent legislative intent clear from the CPC amendment
effective 1.7.2002. No doubt the court’s supervisory jurisdiction
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
(9 of 9) [CW-20730/2025]
under Article 227 is ever present but its exercise has to be
guarded and confined to situations referred to above. None of the
aforesaid situations obtain in the instant case.
9. As an upshot of above discussions, this Court finds that
present writ petition is not only misconceived but also gross abuse
of process of law. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of
merits, is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated
31.07.2019 is upheld.
10. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
21-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:28:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:37:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)