1. The appellants nine in number have filed this intra - court appeal to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 6th December 2023 ("impugned judgment") passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (the "Writ Court") in WP (C) No.2300/2022 titled Mushtaq Ahmad Jan and Others v. Govt. of JK and Others whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants to direct the respondents to pay compensation for land measuring 8 Kanals and 13 marlas falling under Survey Nos.945/946 ("subject land") situate at Muslimabad, Kaloosa Nathpora, Bandipora has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants primarily on the ground that in view of the clear position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in 2020 (2) SCC 569, the Writ Court ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction. It is argued that the State which has forcibly occupied the land of a citizen without following the due process of law can neither plead adverse possession nor can set - up delay and laches to deny the right of such citizen to be compensated for deprivation of his land.

3. Before we proceed to appreciate the arguments of Mr. Shafqat Nazir, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AAG appearing for the respondents, we deem it appropriate to briefly state few relevant facts.

4. One Namdaar Jan, the predecessor - in - interest of the appellants was owner in possession of subject land which, on the death of Namdaar Jan, devolved upon them. The mutation of inheritance bearing No.358 stands testimony of this fact. The subject land, as per the revenue record, continues to be reflected in the ownership of appellants though under occupation / physical possession of the Department of Rural Development. This is the position in the revenue records even as on date. It is not in dispute that the subject land was taken possession of by the Rural Development somewhere prior to 1958-59 for construction of Block building in Bandipora.

5. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the said land belonging to the Predecessor - in - interest of the appellants was taken possession of by the respondents for construction of Block building without following any due process of law and without payment of any compensation. Ever since the aforesaid land is in possession of the Rural Development Department and the building housing the Block Development Office exists on spot.

6. Late Namdaar Jan who was owner in the year 1958-59 did not agitate the matter with regard to the illegal possession of the Rural Development Department over his land nor did he lay a claim for compensation before any authority during his lifetime. It is only in the year 2013, the appellants approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora by way of a written representation seeking compensation of the subject land under the occupation of the Rural Development Department. The representation came to be processed in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, who vide its communication dated 02.01.2017 called upon the Assistant Commissioner, Development, Bandipora to take up the matter with the Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir for release of land compensation to the land owners under norms.

7. The matter was taken up by Assistant Commissioner, Development with the Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir vide communication dated 09.01.2017. The Assistant Commissioner, Rural Development Department while enclosing the relevant documents showing the proprietorship of the appellants in respect of the subject land also made a request to the Director, for release of adequate funds to pay compensation in the matter. The communication of the Assistant Commissioner, Development, Bandipora was forwarded by the Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir to the Administrative De