Legal Analysis on Representation and Delay in Specific Performance Cases

In a recent legal case, the High Court examined the nuances of representation and delay in specific performance cases, shedding light on the significance of timely legal actions. The court’s analysis provides insight into the complexities surrounding such matters, emphasizing the need for parties to approach the court promptly to avoid complications arising from laches or belated filings. Let’s delve into the details of the court’s perspective on these crucial aspects of the legal process.

Facts

The petitioner entered into a Sale Deed with NOIDA on 19.09.2001 for Plot No. 163 of Khata No. 254 under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and the Resolution of NOIDA.
Clause 12 of the Sale Deed entitles the petitioner to 10% of the land for Abadi purposes after 10 years from the date of execution.
Petitioner made a representation to NOIDA in 2010 requesting the allotment of the plot as per the Sale Deed.
High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner regarding the allotment.
NOIDA rejected the petitioner’s representation in 2017, leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 40336 of 2017.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 07.04.2017.
The High Court directed NOIDA to decide the petitioner’s representation quickly, preferably within six weeks.

Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case

Analysis

The High Court entertained a writ petition filed after a delay of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition stating it should have been a suit for specific performance, and the delay of 16 years is fatal for challenging the acquisition.
The petitioner made a representation for plot allotment as per Sale Deed Clause 12 after 10 years from the Sale Deed execution.
Mere representation does not extend the limitation period; aggrieved persons must approach the Court expeditiously.
The High Court failed to dismiss the petition based on delay and laches but directed the authority to decide the representation, leading to fresh litigation.
The High Courts’ orders directing representations to be decided must consider if the petition is filed belatedly or barred by laches to avoid future claims of fresh cause of action post-rejection.
High Courts must also decide on the merits even if an earlier representation is rejected.
The High Court refused to grant relief in the form of specific performance of the contract.
Agreement with the High Court’s view on the merits of the case.
No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained for specific performance after 10 years, as it would be barred by limitation.
The special leave petition is dismissed as it lacks substance.
Petitioner cannot claim a fresh cause of action based on rejection of representation.