Delay and laches cannot bar compensation claims for property deprived by the State without legal sanction.

The petitioner is the successor-in-interest of Suchet Singh, a displaced person from Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir who was allotted 3 kanals and 16 marlas of evacuee property (Khasra No. 234 min) in Tehsil Marh, Jammu

Occupancy rights were conferred under Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, and recorded in the Record of Rights

In approximately 1953-54, the Rural Development Department occupied the land and constructed a Block Development Office (BDO)

The petitioner’s father, and later the petitioner, sought compensation, which was denied

In 2012, an RTI response and subsequent demarcation confirmed the land was under the BDO’s occupation without formal acquisition

The respondents contended that the land was donated by the petitioner's father and that the petition should be dismissed due to an inordinate delay of over 65 years (delay and laches)

Article 300A of the Constitution of India (and the erstwhile Article 31), which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law

The principle from Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2020), which established that the State, as a welfare entity, cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession against its citizens or rely on delay and laches to deny compensation for a continuing cause of action involving constitutional rights

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as the statutory framework for determining compensation

The Court observed that while the respondents claimed the land was "donated," they failed to produce any deed or revenue entry to substantiate this fact

It reasoned that a displaced person is unlikely to donate a small parcel of land allotted for their settlement without any record

Regarding the 65-year delay, the Court held that since the State failed to follow the mandatory land acquisition process, the dispossession remained unauthorized and constituted a "continuing cause of action"

The Court emphasized that the right to property is a human and constitutional right, and the State cannot perfect its title through trespass or by remaining in unauthorized possession

Relying on Vidya Devi, the Court concluded that judicial discretion must favor substantial justice over technical pleas of limitation when a citizen is forcibly expropriated of property without legal sanction

The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to initiate formal acquisition proceedings under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within four weeks

The respondents were ordered to determine the compensation and pay the same to the petitioner expeditiously