No person can be deprived of property without following due process of law.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire relevant record of the acquisitions and constriction of road known as Baldehan-Dharampur-Khatnol road. They may be directed to produce the entire record of acquisition proceedings including copies of award vide which amount of compensation has been paid to the other interest holders of adjoining villages of Mauja Shari, Mool-Bhajji etc..

(ii) Appropriate orders and directions may be issued to the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings and to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law

(iii) Any other suitable relief as deemed fit under facts and circumstances of case may be given to the present petitioner and against the respondents."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his land as detailed in the petition stands utilized for the construction of Baldehan-Dharampur-Khatnol road on 4.3.1997, however till date, no compensation in lieu of the same stands paid to him. Further as per the petitioner despite his having approached the respondents on various occasions for paying compensation to him, till date nothing in this regard has been done.

3. The stand of the State that though in the reply filed by the State the factum has not been disputed but the stand of the State that the petitioner had acquisitioned for the construction of the road in issue from his land and at this belated stage he will not allow to agitate the same.

4. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that some portion of the land of the petitioner has been utilized for the purpose of construction of the road, it is but obvious that the petitioner has to be compensated for the same, especially when the land of the petitioner has been utilized without his consent. In my considered view, respondents cannot be permitted to escape from their responsibility by taking the pleas as are reflected in the reply. Even delay and latches, as alleged by the respondents, cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate compensation for utilization of his land by the respondents.

5. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs (Dead) By Legal Representatives. Vs. State of Karnataka and others , (2016) 3 SCC 422 has held in para 28 as under:

"28. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and any order thereon could not have been passed as it is inordinately delayed and the appellant has made certain false statements in the pleadings before the High Court details of which have been mentioned hereinabove. This issue need not detain the Court. Time and again it has been said that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation. If substantial issues of public importance touching upon the fairness of governmental action do arise, the delayed approach to reach the Court will not stand in the way of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Insofar as the knowledge of the appellantwrit petitioner with regard to the allotment of the land to Respondent 28 Society is concerned, what was claimed in the writ petition is that it is only in the year 1994 when Respondent 28 Society had attempted to raise construction on the land that the fact of allotment of such land came to be known to the appellant-writ petitioner."

6. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No(s) 2373/2014, Raj Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others decided on 29.10.2015 has held as under:

"There is in our opinion considerable merit in the submission made by Mr. Nag. It is true that the appellant had approached the High Court rather belatedly inasmuch the land had been utilized some time in the year 198586 while the writ petition was filed by the appellant in the year 2009. At the same time it is clear from th