Unlawful deprivation of property without acquisition can still attract compensation on acquisition terms despite delay and laches.

The State's taking and use of private land for road construction without lawful acquisition, written consent or compensation was treated as unlawful deprivation of property, requiring compensation on acquisition terms as if the land had been deemed acquired, including statutory accretions such as solatium and interest. Delay and laches did not bar relief because the deprivation was continuing and the State had acted without authority of law; the landowners' belated approach did not cure the illegality. The impugned order was set aside and relief granted for unlawful dispossession, with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay and laches barred the appellants from seeking relief for illegal dispossession of their land without acquisition or compensation. (ii) Whether the State's taking and use of the appellants' land for road construction, without lawful acquisition, entitled them to compensation with consequential statutory benefits.

Issue (i): Whether delay and laches barred the appellants from seeking relief for illegal dispossession of their land without acquisition or compensation.

Analysis: The right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains protected as a constitutional right against deprivation except by authority of law. Where the State has taken private property without following lawful acquisition procedure, the defence of delay and laches cannot be used mechanically to defeat relief, particularly when the injustice is continuing and the State itself has acted arbitrarily. The appellants' belated approach was viewed in the context of the State's failure to regularise the deprivation and its selective grant of benefits to other landowners.

Conclusion: The objection based on delay and laches was rejected and did not bar relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the State's taking and use of the appellants' land for road construction, without lawful acquisition, entitled them to compensation with consequential statutory benefits.

Analysis: The land was used for public road construction without proof of lawful acquisition, written consent, or payment of compensation. Such forcible deprivation of property was held to be inconsistent with the rule of law and the constitutional protection against deprivation of property except by authority of law. The Court applied the principle that, in such circumstances, the land must be treated as deemed acquired and compensation must follow on the same terms as in comparable acquisition proceedings, including solatium and interest.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to compensation and consequential statutory benefits, with the land treated as deemed acquired.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellants obtained relief for unlawful dispossession through a direction for compensation on acquisition terms, together with statutory accretions and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: The State cannot rely on delay and laches to defeat relief where private property has been taken without lawful authority, and unlawful dispossession for public use requires compensation as if the land had been lawfully acquired.

---