Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 932 of 2007, titled as Smt. Kamlesh versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition was allowed, for short ‘the impugned judgment’.

2. In the writ petition, in para-3, it is specifically averred that the writ petitioner has come to the court after a lapse of 20 years, after the possession of the land in question was taken over by the writ respondents. He has not explained the delay, as such, is caught by delay and laches.

3. The similar question arose before this Court for determination in Shankar Dass versus State of Himachal Pradesh & connected matter, reported in 2013(2) Him. LR (FB) 698. It is apt to reproduce the concluding para of the aforesaid judgment herein:-

“10. In view of above, the reference is answered as follows:

“Where a person has willingly surrendered his land to the State with consent, then he cannot seek a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of land surrendered by him to the State. In case dispute ar