As per case facts, the Mizo Chief Council filed a Writ Petition alleging that the lands of tribal chieftains in the Lushai Hills district were seized without due compensation, violating ... their fundamental right to property. They contended that the Act of 1954 only compensated for administrative rights, not for the value of the land. Despite continuous agitation and representations to authorities, including the State's assurances before the High Court for an amicable settlement, the matter remained unresolved. The question arose whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, and if any fundamental rights of the Mizo Chiefs were violated. Finally, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the inordinate delay, decided not to dismiss the petition solely on that ground given the State's conduct. However, the Court found that the petitioners failed to prove clear title over the lands and could not establish absolute ownership. The claim of discrimination compared to Princely States regarding privy purses was also rejected, as those were contractual arrangements, not fundamental rights. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish any fundamental rights violation, and the writ petition was dismissed.