JUDGMENT :

ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.

1. The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2735 of 2019, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. As per the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner, he is recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2208/1 area 0.78 acres situated at Village Dabhara, Patwari Halka No. 22, Tahsil Dabhara. In the year 1979, possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road, but, till date the respondents authorities have not paid any compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land. The appellant also made representation before the authorities, but till date, no compensation is given against the acquired land. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 2735 of 2019 before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.1.2020 on the ground of delay and laches.

3. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation vs. Jabar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 112, New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278, P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 136 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and observed as under:

“3. This Court finds that the writ petition is highly belated. No plausible explanation has been given for not approaching the competent Court of law or even to the Writ Court for a period of 40 years. Four decades is a very long time for any person to seek relief of whatsoever nature be it. The petition is highly belated for the reason that petition was aware of his property having been taken by the respondents more than 40 years back itself. The non raising of claim for a period of 40 years, this Court is forced to draw an inference that the petitioner must have acquiesced of his right arising out of the alleged taking over of the property belonging to the petitioner by the respondents.

4. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that against an impugned order, if a person wishes to approach the Court invoking writ jurisdiction, he should approach the Court within a reasonable period. The reasonable period cannot be stretch to the extent of more than a decade.”

Hence, the instant appeal by the petitioner.

4. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the right to property is not only a human right but also a constitutional right. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India protects such right and the constitutional right cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. According to the reply filed by the respondents/State in this writ appeal, the State admitted the fact that the land has been utilised for construction of the road. The State further admitted the fact that compensation has not been paid and also admitted the fact that the State failed to produce the record of any land acquisition proceeding with regard to the land in question. Thus, it is well established that without there being issuance of any notice, payment of compensation, possession of the land has been taken by the State, which is illegal. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge are with respect to service jurisprudence/service law. None of the decisions cited or relied on by the learned Single Judge is in respect of land acquisition. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569, it was argued that in