Continuing cause of action defeats delay and laches where acquired land remains uncompensated under Article 300-A.

Delay and laches did not bar constitutional relief where land acquired for a public purpose remained uncompensated for years and the grievance reflected a continuing cause of action. Article 300-A protects property against deprivation otherwise than by authority of law and payment of compensation, so the State's failure to determine and pay compensation required judicial scrutiny. The High Court should have examined why compensation was never fixed at acquisition and how any later valuation was made, rather than directing a fresh application. The rejection of the writ petition on delay was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for compensation arising from acquisition of land could be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, and whether the High Court was justified in disposing of the matter without examining the legality of the State's failure to determine and pay compensation.

Analysis: The land had been acquired for a public purpose, but no compensation award had been passed for decades and the owner had persistently sought compensation. The right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right protected by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and deprivation of property must be in accordance with law and upon payment of compensation. Delay and laches cannot be applied mechanically where the cause of action is continuing and the State's failure to act itself is under challenge. The High Court was required to enquire why compensation was not determined at the time of acquisition and on what basis the later figure was arrived at, instead of directing the claimant to make another application.

Conclusion: The rejection of the writ petition on the ground of delay was not sustainable, and the High Court's disposal of the appeal was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with an expectation of expeditious disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay and laches do not bar constitutional relief where the State has retained possession of property without determining or paying compensation and the grievance discloses a continuing cause of action.

---