The main legal point established in the judgment is that no person can be deprived of property without following due process of law, and the State cannot be permitted to deprive due and just compensation for the utilization of land.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment to the petitioners for the land situated in Khata Khatauni No. 29 Khasra No. 171/1 measuring 2.7 Bighas for the construction of the road as per rates of compensation already settled by the District Judge vide its award dated 28.2.2006 and upheld by this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2008 along with solecium, interest etc. etc.

(ii) That in alternative of prayer No. (i) above, the respondents may be directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act and to make the payment of compensation according to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent-department acquired land for the construction of Namhol-Asha Majari Road and for the said purpose it issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. After complying with the provisions as envisaged in the Land Acquisition Act, an award was passed by respondent No. 2 on 20.1.1997. Against the said award, reference petitions were also preferred in the Court of learned District Judge which were also decided on 28.2.2006. Vide judgment dated 23.12.2008 in RFA No. 359 of 2006 and connected matters, this Court dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections which were filed by the respective parties against the award passed in reference petitions by the learned District Judge.

3. Petitioners are owners in possession of land measuring 2.7 bighas comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 29, Khasra No. 171/1, out of which 0.13 bighas of land has been utilized by the respondents for the construction of Namhol-Asha Majari road from the above stated khasra number without acquiring the same. As per petitioners, respondents by mistake or otherwise ignored this portion of land comprised in Khasra No. 171/1 to be included in the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of acquiring the land required for the construction of road. Thus, as a result of the said act of omission and commission of the respondents, the land of the petitioners stands utilized by the respondents for the purpose of the construction of the road mentioned above without compensating them in accordance with law. It is further their case that they are rustic and illiterate villagers and they came to know of the factum of their land having been utilized without them being adequately compensated as per law when the matters were decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 23.12.2008. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners thereafter have approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioners in terms of the award/rates of compensation settled by learned District Judge vide order dated 28.2.2006 which has been upheld by this Court vide its judgment dated 23.12.2008.

4. In its reply, respondents have not denied the factum of the construction of road through the land of the petitioners, however, the stand of the State is that at the time when the said land of the petitioners was utilized for the purpose of construction of the road no objection was raised by the petitioners and now at such a belated stage petitioners cannot be permitted to plead that their land should be acquired and they should be compensated for their land, which has been utilized for the construction of the road. According to the respondents, petition is hit by delay and laches and there is no justifiable explanation given by the petitioners as to why they have approached the Court so late in the year 2009 when the road was constructed between the years 1982-1990.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case.

6. In order to substantiate its case that at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon a Full Bench jud