Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for directing the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2018 (Annexure-2) filed in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 for determination of the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner against his land appertaining to Khata No. 205, new Khesra No. 1094, 1094A, and 1095 (old Khesra No.1120 and new Khesra 1095 old no. 1074 respectively, situated at Village -Mahinathpur, P.S. Bharibsthan, District- Madhubani which has been taken for broadening and realignment NH-57.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is son of Lilanand Choudnary and in whose name letter has been issued from the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani. He further submits that the petitioner had received part payment but due to death of his father he could not receive the full payment towards compensation and, therefore, the money towards compensation is still lying with the District Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani. He further submits that he has filed several representations in this regard before the respondent No.2, namely, the Collector, Madhubani, but till date neither any decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner nor payment of compensation has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the light of the pleading made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this matter due to the reason that the alleged acquisition was made in the year 2006. He has also referred a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.05.2019 in CWJC No. 10057 of 2019, titled as Shyam Mandal vs. the State of Bihar in which on the ground of delay the claim has been rejected.

5. Upon going through the pleadings and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to place the latest judgment on the point of delay rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anrs. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 (7) Supreme Court Cases 508. It would be apposite to quote paragraph Nos. 18 and 24 as under:—

18. There is a welter of precedents on delay and laches which conclude either way—as contended by both sides in the present dispute—however, the specific factual matrix compels this Court to weigh in favour of the appellant landowners. The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation; there cannot be a “limitation” to doing justice. This Court in a much earlier case — Maharashtra SRTC vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service [Maharashtra SRTC vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, (1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] , held : (AIR pp. 335-36, para 11)

“11. … ‘Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material.

But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one c