Constitution of India – Arts. 31, 136, 142 and 300A – Respondent-State took over the land of the appellant in 1967–68 for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law – Construction of the road completed by 1975 – In 2004, some similarly situated persons whose lands were also taken over by the respondent for the same public purpose, filed writ petition titled Anakh Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. claiming compensation – Allowed – Respondent initiated acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act only with respect to the lands of the writ petitioners, and not the other land-owners whose lands were also taken over – Appellant filed writ petition inter alia praying that the State be directed to pay compensation for the land acquired in 1967-68 – High Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings, however granted liberty to the appellant to file suit– Review Petition dismissed – On appeal, held: In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, a widow coming from rural area was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was fundamental right (though ceased to be so by the 1978 Amendment Act) guaranteed by Art.31 in Part III of the Constitution – To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of human right, as also the constitutional right u/Art.300 A – Cause of action is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without any legal sanction– In view of extraordinary jurisdiction u/Arts. 136 and 142, the State is directed to pay compensation to the appellant on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court by order dtd. 07.07.15 in Anakh Singh’s case with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition – Affidavit of compliance be filed by the State before Supreme Court within 10 weeks – If appeal is filed by the appellant within 8 weeks from the date of compensation being paid to her by the State, the appeal will be treated to be within limitation, and decided on its own merits in accordance with law– State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs.1,00,0000/- to the appellant– Orders passed by the High Court set aside– Land Acquisition Act, 1894– Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978– Doctrine of adverse possession.

Principles/Doctrines – Doctrine of adverse possession – Appellant’s land taken over by the Respondent-State in 1967–68 for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law – Plea of adverse possession taken by State – Held: State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years – State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as done in the present case.

Constitution of India – Arts.136, 142 and 226 – Land of the appellant (an illiterate person, widow from rural area) was taken over by the Respondent-State in 1967–68 for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law – Appellant approached the High Court in 2010 – State took the plea of delay and laches by the appellant in moving the Court – Held: Rejected – Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court – Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case – It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose – There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.