STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(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 25/03/1985, 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 24/12/1986. The High court by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches and on the ground that in the interregnum the rights of third parties had come to be intervened. An appeal was preferred before the division bench which was also dismissed.

(2.) In this appeal before us it is argued having regard to the ruling in G. Ramegowda v. S. L. A. Officer 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.