The State cannot dispossess a citizen of their private property without following due process of law provided under Article 300A of the Constitution; pleas of delay and laches or adverse possession by the State are untenable against the right to compensation for unauthorized occupation of private land.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner claiming to be the son of his predecessor-in-interest namely Suchet Singh, a displaced person from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, who had occupied a piece of evacuees’ property land measuring 3 kanals and 16 marlas falling under khasra No.234 min (old) new 159 situated at village Halqa, Tehsil Jammu now Tehsil Marh District Jammu, has asserted that the aforesaid piece of land was initially allotted to his predecessor-in-interest, vide Government Order No.578-C and after coming into force, the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, occupancy rights under section 3-A of Agrarian Reform Act, were also conferred upon him; and that after the death of his father, the petitioner namely Suchet Singh has acquired the occupancy rights in the land in question which have been recognized in the Record of Rights (ROR) and Khasra-Girdawaris, which is evident from the Record of Rights of Kharif 2006 and Khasra Girdawari of Rabi 2013; that the father of the petitioner by way of Will had bequeathed the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner; that the land of the petitioner was occupied by the respondents for construction of Block Development Office at Marh; that the father of the petitioner had approached the respondents for grant of compensation and after his death, the petitioner had also been pursuing the case of compensation before the respondents but they were denied the compensation, for their land.

2. It has been pleaded that when no compensation was provided to the petitioner, he moved an RTI application in the year 2012 in the office of District Collector, Jammu and he was provided information that the land of the petitioner was under the occupation of Rural Development Department and a Block Development Office has been constructed on his land; that as per the demarcation conducted by the revenue field staff, the petitioner’s land was found to have been taken over by the State authorities without following process of acquisition; that the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 03.12.2020 seeking compensation of land and finally, it was prayed to direct the respondents either to vacate the land of the petitioner and handover vacant possession to the petitioner or in the alternate to pay compensation to the petitioner, according to market rate of the land, prevailing in the area.

3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, stating therein that the construction of Block Development Officer’s office at Marh was started in the year 1953-54 approximately; and that this building is here for the last more than 65 years without any objection by the petitioner or his father; that the petitioner has approached this Court now after inordinate delay and the petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches.

4. The petitioner in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit has pleaded that the official respondents filed reply raising preliminary objection that the writ petition is hit by inordinate delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed out rightly on the ground that the land in question has been donated to the department long back and whereafter the construction of BDO office building was completed and the land remained in the possession and occupation of the BDO office; that neither the deceased father of the petitioner nor the petitioner herein, ever donated or executed any document in favour of the respondent-department for construction of BDO office; that the land had been occupied by the department without any process of acquisition and paying any compensation, to the petitioner; that the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner and his father had been approaching the department for payment of compensation but no compensation was paid to them. It has been further reiterated that neither the petitioner nor his predecessor in interest have ever donated the land in question to the respondents-department; and that the respondents have failed