IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with procedure established by law – Obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article.
(2) Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction – Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action or if circumstances shock judicial conscience of court.

1. Application for substitution to bring on record the legal heirs of the first petitioner is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from a order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 7 February 2023 in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 997 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8408 of 2019 by which the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal by asking the appellant herein to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the land assessed at Rs. 4,68,099.

4. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:

In the year 1976, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the purpose of construction of State Highway as notified by the State of Bihar. The land owned by the appellant herein was included in Section 4 notification referred to above. Sometime in 1977, the land of the appellant was acquired. However, it is the case of the appellant that not a single penny was paid to him towards compensation.

5. The appellant preferred an appropriate application addressed to the State Government immediately after his land came to be acquired and possession was taken over in the year 1977 for payment of compensation. It is the case of the appellant that State did not even pass any award of compensation and kept the matter in limbo.

6. Years passed by and the appellant kept on requesting the authorities to pass an appropriate award and pay the amount towards compensation.

7. As the respondents did not pay heed to the say of the appellant, he was left with no other option but to file a writ petition in the High Court of Patna. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge and by order dated 19 July 2019 rejected the same only on the count that the petition had been filed after a period of forty-two years of the acquisition. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant had failed to submit any paper or notification in connection with acquisition of his land for the purpose of payment of compensation.

8. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting his writ petition, the appellant went in appeal. The appeal came to be disposed of by a Division Bench in the following terms:

“A hard copy of the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed across the Board.

Let it be taken on record.

In view of the categorical stand of the State that the land of the appellants had been consumed and that the State is ready to compensate the appellants, nothing remains in this appeal to be decided.

The appellants have been informed about the value of the land has been assessed at Rs. 4,68,099/-.

All that the appellants have to do is to file an application before the concerned authority as to how the amount shall be apportioned between him and his son.

It is expected that the decision in that regard by the State Authority shall be taken without any delay as already the matter has become five decades old.

The appeal stands disposed of.”

9. Mr. Dharnidhar Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the State conceded to the fact that the land of the appellant had been acquired and was put to use for the purpose the same was acquired. He would submit that if the State thought fit to acquire the land of his client, then it was obligatory on the part of the State to pass an appropriate award determining the amount towards compensation. He would submit that it is not the case that the appellant herein was lethargic in asserting his rights, but rather kept on requesting the authorities concerned to determine the amount towards compensation and pay the same.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugne