Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment discussing the principle of constructive res judicata and the effect of delay and laches.   
• This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal. 

Facts  

• A writ petition was filed by Laxmi Narayan Das (deceased) through his legal representatives on June 27, 2008, challenging the Settlement Officer's order dated March 1, 1990, passed in Settlement Appeal No. 537/90, after a delay of more than 18 years. 
• The petitioners claimed their objections during the settlement process were not considered, leading to the land being recorded in the name of the General Administration Department (GAD), and their subsequent representation to the GAD was not decided. 
• The State argued that the final record of rights was published in 1962, and the petitioners could have filed a revision application under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958, but they failed to do so. 
• The Division Bench of the High Court overturned the record of rights from 1962, directing consideration of the petitioners' representation and ordering the allotment of a suitable plot in exchange for their stitiban/sthitiban land, which the State has challenged in this appeal. 

Issue Involved  

• What is the effect of delay and laches in availing the remedies against the final publication of record or rights? 
• Whether writ petition is maintainable when the civil suit filed for the same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh one and on concealment of material facts from the Court? 
• Whether a party can rely on notings in the Government files without having communication of any order on the basis thereof ? 

Observations 

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • The doctrine of delay and laches mandates that a person seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution must approach the court within a reasonable time, as reiterated in various judgments such as P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh (2007). 
  • Courts discourage stale claims and emphasize that inordinate delay, unless adequately explained, should bar relief. 
  • In Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022), the Court emphasized that delay and laches involve two critical factors: the length of the delay and the nature of actions during the intervening period, which can amount to acquiescence or waiver of rights, making it unjustifiable to grant relief. 
  • In this case, the respondents delayed nearly 46 years after the finalization of the record of rights in 1962, failing to pursue the statutory revision remedy under Section 15(b) of the 1958 Act and only approaching the court in 2008, which the Court deemed highly belated and therefore ineligible for any relief. 
• With Respect to Issue (ii) 
  • The civil suit in this case was withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action. 
  • After withdrawing the civil suit the respondents filed a writ petition seeking relief relating to the land including allotment of equivalent land. 
  • Also, they failed to disclose the prior withdrawal of the civil suit in the writ petition. 
  • The Court applied the principle of constructive res judicata which prevents the litigants from pursuing the same relief through multiple proceedings. 
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable after the civil suit's withdrawal without liberty to refile. 
  • The Court further held that the litigants must disclose all the material facts and also suppressing of facts amounts to misleading the Court and warrants dismissal of the case.
• With Respect to Issue (iii): 
  • Inter-departmental communications and file notings are considered part of the decision-making process and do not confer any rights or serve as binding orders unless formally expressed in the name of the appropriate authority and communicated to the concerned party. 
  • As established in precedents, a mere noting or expression of opinion in a file does not constitute a valid government order. Such notings require formalization, expression in the name of the Governor (under Articles 77 or 166), and proper communication to be effective. 
  • Letters, recommendations, or requests for approval (e.g., from a Secretary or Deputy Commissioner) do not amount to enforceable orders or approvals unless they comply with the prescribed procedural formalities. 
  • Even if a communication could be construed as an allotment, claims made after significant delays (e.g., over 30 years) without adherence to applicable rules (e.g., possession to be taken within six months) cannot be enforced or upheld in court.   
• Hence, the Court concluded the issues as follows: 
  • Owing to the delay on the part of the respondents, they are not entitled to any kind of relief. 
  • The principle of constructive res judicata would apply and the respondent would not be entitled to any relief. 
  • There was no order passed by the Government and conveyed to the respondents for allotment of any land in their favour. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief solely based on the official notings. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court which discusses the following three points: 
  • Where there are delays on the part of the party there cannot be any relief granted. 
  • Where a suit has been withdrawn and permission is not taken before filing a new suit a new suit on the same relief the principle of constructive res judicata shall apply. 

[Original Judgment]