State cannot deny land compensation by pleading oral donation or delay without documentary evidence.

The petitioners are joint owners of land measuring 01 Kanal and 06 Marlas (Survey No. 135) in village Naina, Bijbehara, inherited from their father.

The respondents occupied this land for the construction of Government High School Naina without formal acquisition or payment of compensation.

The respondents contended that the land was donated by the petitioners' uncle in 2006 on charitable grounds and that the petition should be dismissed due to an inordinate delay (laches) in claiming compensation.

The respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence or revenue entries to substantiate the alleged donation.

1. Whether the State can deprive a citizen of private property based on an unsubstantiated plea of "donation" without following due process of law?

2. Whether the plea of delay and laches can be invoked by the State to deny compensation for the continuous unauthorized occupation of private property?

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

The Supreme Court precedent Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2020), which established that the right to property is a human and constitutional right, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens or rely on oral consent to evade compensation.

The Division Bench ruling in Mushtaq Ahmad Jan & Ors. Vs. Govt. of J&K (2025), affirming that delay and laches cannot defeat a claim for compensation in cases of continuing unauthorized possession.

The court reasoned that since the respondents failed to provide any documentary evidence or revenue records to prove the land was donated, the plea of donation must be rejected.

The court observed that the State, as a "welfare state," cannot arrogate to itself the status of a trespasser or claim title through adverse possession.

Applying the principles from Vidya Devi, the court held that the lack of contemporaneous protest by the landowner does not equate to a waiver of constitutional rights.

Because the deprivation of property without compensation constitutes a "continuing cause of action," the respondents’ defense regarding the petitioners’ delay in filing the suit was deemed legally unsustainable.

The court emphasized that the State is under a constitutional obligation to follow statutory acquisition procedures before divesting a citizen of their landed estate.

The petition was allowed. 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 and pay adequate compensation at the prevalent market value to the petitioners expeditiously.