Key Points: - The Court held that if land is taken without acquisition, remedy may be through writ petition or civil suit, and Section 18 is not the applicable remedy when no acquisition has occurred (!) - The High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition on the basis of Section 18 as an alternative remedy was not justified, and the matter requires reconsideration on merits, while considering delay and laches (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that belated writ petitions, absent proper explanation for delay, are liable to be dismissed and that the High Court should assess whether the case involves public law violation or high-handed state action (!) (!) - The Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal of the writ petition in accordance with law, without expressing opinion on merits (!)

What is the remedy when land is taken without acquisition and a writ petition is filed seeking directions to acquire and pay compensation?

What is the correctness of dismissing a writ petition on the ground that Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides the exclusive remedy?

What factors should the High Court consider when deciding whether to exercise writ jurisdiction in land acquisition disputes involving delayed petitions?