Delay and laches cannot defeat compensation for private land used without lawful acquisition.

The petitioner claimed ownership of Khasra No. 296/2, measuring 0.206 hectares, situated at Village Badroan, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa.

The respondents constructed a road under the Pradhan Mantri Rural Road Scheme over the land in 2008 without undertaking acquisition proceedings or paying compensation.

The respondents contended that a road had already existed at the site for more than 25 years, that only a pucca road was subsequently constructed, and that the petitioner had raised no objection during or after the construction.

The High Court found that the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and that the road had been constructed over the land in 2008; the writ petition was filed in 2016.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation where the respondents had utilised his land for construction of a public road without following the statutory acquisition procedure?

Whether the petitioner’s claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay, laches, or alleged absence of objection to the road construction?

Whether compensation was required to be determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with reference to the market value prevailing in 2008?

Article 300-A of the Constitution protects the right to property and prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law.

The State must acquire, requisition, or otherwise utilise private land only through a legally permissible procedure; unauthorised deprivation of property warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.

Relying on Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 508, Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353, and Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569, the Court held that delay and laches cannot ordinarily defeat a claim for compensation where the State has taken and used private land without authority of law.

Since the land was utilised in 2008, compensation was directed to be determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including interest under Section 34, with the market value assessed as it existed in 2008.

The Court treated the petitioner’s ownership and the respondents’ utilisation of the land for road construction as undisputed.

Although the respondents relied on the existence of an earlier road and the petitioner’s alleged failure to object, those circumstances did not establish lawful acquisition or voluntary relinquishment of the petitioner’s property.

Applying Article 300-A and the Supreme Court’s precedents, the Court held that the State could not rely on delay or laches to avoid its obligation to compensate a landowner whose property had been used for a public purpose without following due process.

The Court therefore directed compensation under the legal regime applicable when the land was utilised, namely the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, valued with reference to the 2008 market value.

The respondents were directed to determine and pay compensation for the petitioner’s 0.206-hectare land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the market value prevailing in 2008, together with interest under Section 34 of that Act.

The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within 90 days from production of a certified copy of the order.