Compulsory land acquisition without due process or compensation violates constitutional and human rights under Article 300A.

The petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest owned 2 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land under Khasra No. 299 (old) in Village Digiana, Jammu.

While 11 Marlas were sold privately, the remaining 2 Kanals were occupied by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in 1957 for the widening of the Jammu-Pathankot National Highway without formal acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation.

The land subsequently changed management from the CPWD to the State PWD in 2010, and finally to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in 2021 for the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway project.

Revenue records confirmed the petitioner's forefathers as owners but showed the land as "occupied by CPWD" without any record of acquisition or compensation.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus for assessment and payment of compensation.

The Court primarily applied Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law.

It relied on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), which established that the right to property is a human and constitutional right, and the State cannot plead adverse possession or delay to divest a citizen of their property without due process.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2020), affirming that even if property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a protected constitutional right that requires strict adherence to legal procedures for expropriation.

The Court observed that the Revenue Department's own reports confirmed the petitioner's ownership and the absence of any acquisition proceedings or compensation payments since 1957.

The Court rejected the respondents' implicit defense of delay and laches, noting that the State’s occupation of the land for over 70 years without legal title constitutes a continuing wrong.

By tracing the transfer of possession from CPWD to State PWD to NHAI, the Court found that none of the successive authorities verified the legal title or compensated the owners.

Applying the "eminent domain" doctrine, the Court reasoned that while the State may acquire land for public purposes, such power is contingent upon the payment of "just and fair compensation" and adherence to statutory procedures, which were entirely bypassed in this instance.

It directed the NHAI to either: (i) submit an indent for formal acquisition of the land to the Competent Authority within six weeks; or (ii) restore possession of the land to the owners.

It further ordered the Collector/Competent Authority to conclude the acquisition proceedings and determine compensation in accordance with the applicable statutes upon receipt of the indent.