Continuing unlawful deprivation of property defeats delay and laches objections and requires lawful acquisition with compensation.

Delay and laches are not an automatic bar; their effect depends on the facts, especially where the grievance is a continuing deprivation of property, the claimant has persistently pursued relief, no third-party rights have intervened, and the illegality is serious enough to warrant intervention. The text also states that the State cannot retain possession of land or deny compensation without completing acquisition in accordance with law, because property may be deprived only by authority of law and executive convenience cannot replace statutory acquisition procedures. It further notes that prompt acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation with statutory benefits were directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for relief was barred by delay and laches. (ii) Whether the State could retain possession of the land and deny compensation without completing acquisition in accordance with law.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for relief was barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: Delay and laches is not an absolute bar; it is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the facts. Where the grievance concerns a continuing deprivation of property, the claimant had persistently pursued the authorities, and the illegality complained of shocks the judicial conscience, the passage of time does not by itself defeat relief. The existence of no third-party rights and the continuing nature of the cause of action were material considerations.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by delay and laches.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could retain possession of the land and deny compensation without completing acquisition in accordance with law.

Analysis: Deprivation of property must be only by authority of law. Executive action or administrative convenience cannot substitute the statutory procedure for acquisition. Where possession was taken without completing acquisition, and the State itself accepted the owners' title, the retention of land without payment of compensation offended the constitutional protection of property and the obligation of a welfare State to act fairly and lawfully.

Conclusion: The State could not deprive the owners of the land without completing acquisition and paying compensation in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the matter was resolved by directions requiring prompt acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation with statutory benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Property can be deprived only by authority of law, and delay and laches will not defeat relief where the grievance is a continuing unlawful deprivation by the State and no third-party rights have intervened.

---