Property cannot be taken without lawful acquisition and compensation; delay, laches, and adverse possession cannot cure unlawful deprivation.

The State cannot dispossess property without authority of law, lawful acquisition, and compensation; deprivation of property remains protected under Article 300A. Forced taking of land for road construction without acquisition was impermissible, and compensation was required on a deemed acquisition basis with statutory benefits. Delay and laches did not bar relief because the non-payment of compensation made the deprivation a continuing wrong, and the State's plea of adverse possession was rejected as inconsistent with an unlawful taking. The refusal of relief was therefore set aside, and substantive compensation was granted for the unconstitutional deprivation of property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State could dispossess the appellant of her land without acquisition proceedings, legal sanction, or payment of compensation; (ii) whether the claim was barred by delay and laches or defeated by the State's plea of adverse possession; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to compensation on the basis of deemed acquisition.

Issue (i): Whether the State could dispossess the appellant of her land without acquisition proceedings, legal sanction, or payment of compensation.

Analysis: The appellant's land was taken over for road construction without recourse to acquisition proceedings or any other lawful mode. The right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right protected by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and deprivation can occur only by authority of law. Forced dispossession without due process and without compensation was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The State could not lawfully deprive the appellant of her property without acquisition under law and payment of compensation, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was barred by delay and laches or defeated by the State's plea of adverse possession.

Analysis: The deprivation was treated as a continuing wrong because the appellant had never been compensated for the compulsory taking of her land. In such circumstances, delay and laches did not defeat the claim, particularly where the facts shocked the judicial conscience. The plea of adverse possession was rejected as inconsistent with the State's obligation to act under law and not to convert an unlawful taking into title.

Conclusion: The objections based on delay and laches and adverse possession were rejected, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation on the basis of deemed acquisition.

Analysis: Since the land had been taken and used for a public purpose without lawful acquisition, the appropriate relief was payment of compensation on terms comparable to similarly situated landowners, together with statutory benefits. The matter was treated as one of deemed acquisition to ensure restitution for the unlawful deprivation.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to compensation with statutory benefits on a deemed acquisition basis, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to grant relief was set aside and the appellant received substantive relief for unlawful deprivation of property by the State.

Ratio Decidendi: Property cannot be taken by the State except under authority of law and on payment of compensation, and in a case of continuing unlawful deprivation, delay, laches and adverse possession do not bar constitutional relief.

---