Land acquisition cannot be challenged after inordinate delay where physical possession was established decades prior.

The appellants challenged the order of a Single Judge dated 29.01.2026, which dismissed their writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 493 of 2026] regarding lands acquired in 1974.

The appellants claimed they remained in continuous possession of the land and argued the petition should not have been dismissed on grounds of delay without a counter-affidavit.

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that physical possession of 567.25 acres (including the disputed land in Chhota Manikpur) was taken over on 26.11.1974 via Memo No. 1655 and handed over to the industrial authority (now JIADA) through a deed of conveyance.

Records showed the land was subsequently allotted to third-party industrial units in 1975 and 2009.

1. Whether the appellants demonstrated continued physical possession of the acquired land sufficient to overcome the delay in filing the petition.

2. Whether the court should interfere with a land acquisition challenge initiated approximately 50 years after the cause of action accrued.

The Court applied the doctrine of laches and inordinate delay as a bar to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Procedural requirements for taking possession of land as established in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 1767).

Section 17 (urgency provisions) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, noting that statutory irregularities cannot be entertained after excessive delay.

The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on a 2025 document to prove current possession, finding that the document only recorded attempts to disturb JIADA's possession rather than confirming the appellants' lawful title or occupancy.

The Court observed that the respondents provided clear, categorical statements supported by unambiguous 1974 conveyance documents proving that physical possession was transferred decades ago.

Regarding the procedural arguments under Balwant Narayan Bhagde, the Court noted that the appellants had not originally pleaded illegal taking of possession, but merely continued possession.

The Court reasoned that since the cause of action accrued in 1974 and the petition was filed in 2025, the "inordinate delay and laches" were fatal to the case, regardless of the cited precedents on urgency provisions or possession procedures.

The Court affirmed that a challenge to land acquisition and possession brought after a 50-year delay is barred by laches and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) without costs.