JUDGMENT DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the Tahasildar, Pipli in Revenue Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006. Opposite party no. 1 - Institute has been put to possession by the State of Orissa over petitioners’ land. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have been dispossessed illegally without following the procedure prescribed by law and the said dispossession is in violation of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Land had been taken away from then without initiating the acquisition proceedings. Thus, they are entitled for restoration of posses¬sion of the land. Alternatively they should be paid compensation. 2. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 Institute has submitted that the Institute is not concerned with the original ownership. The land has been handed over to it by the State of Orissa and there was an agreement between opposite party no. 1 and the State of Orissa for providing free land to establish the Research Institute. Therefore, if the petitioners claim land or compensation thereof it is the State of Orissa which is responsible and not opposite party no.1. 3. Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advo¬cate appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the order of the Tahasildar is based on the order passed in consolida¬tion proceedings which had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and, therefore it can be avoided and thus, the writ peti¬tion is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2006 directing the revenue authorities to consider their case. In pursuance of the said order the Tahasildar has passed an order which is being chal¬lenged in W.P.(C) No. 16878 of 2006. Inspite of that neither the State nor opposite party no.1-Institute is handing over posses¬sion to the petitioners nor taking any step to acquire the land or paying compensation for it. 6. Admitted facts remain that the petitioner had been dispossessed without following any procedure prescribed by law and possession has been handed over by the State to opposite party Institute. Inspite of that neither the State nor opposite party no.1-Institute is handing over posses¬sion to the petitioners nor taking any step to acquire the land or paying compensation for it. 6. Admitted facts remain that the petitioner had been dispossessed without following any procedure prescribed by law and possession has been handed over by the State to opposite party Institute. The petitioners successfully established their title over the land in dispute before the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 26.6.1980 passed in Case No. 752/27. It has been declared therein that the petitioner were having valid title over the suit land. The said order of the Consolidation Officer was not challenged by any party, though the Institute - opposite party no.1 was also a party in the consolidation proceedings and it attained finality. Thus, we find no force in the submission of Mr. Khuntia, the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the said order has been obtained by misrepresentation as neither the State nor opposite party no.1 has challenged the same either by filing appeal or revision or by making an application before the same Court to recall the said order as it was obtained by misrepresentation. We are bound to give effect to the same. 7. Admittedly the right to property had earlier been a fundamental right and now it remains as a constitutional and/or as a human right. No person can be deprived of his property with¬out paying the compensation. (Vide Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 142 ; S.R. Ejaz Vs. T.N. Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 1152 ; DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1648 ; Indian Handicrafts Emporium Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3240 ; P.T. Muni¬chikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1753 ; Smt. M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi Vs. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corpn. & Anr, (2007) 8 SCC 798; Aslam Mohd. Merchant Vs. Competent Authority & Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 186; Karnatak State Financial Corporation Vs. N. Narasimahaiah & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1797 ; Vimalaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2675 ; and N. Padmamma & Ors Vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy &Ors., J.T. 2008 (10) SC 598). 8. Merchant Vs. Competent Authority & Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 186; Karnatak State Financial Corporation Vs. N. Narasimahaiah & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1797 ; Vimalaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2675 ; and N. Padmamma & Ors Vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy &Ors., J.T. 2008 (10) SC 598). 8. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar (supra) the Apex Court defined the ‘Property’ as under : “Property in legal sense means an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by law. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, more particularly, ownership and exclusive right to a thing, the right to dispose of thing in every legal way to possess it, to use it and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. The dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects is called property.” The Court further observed that a person who is deprived of his property without authority of law is entitled to compensa¬tion. 9. The Supreme Court in Chairman, Indore Vikash Pradhikaran Vs. M/s. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2458 , the Court held as under:- “Property, while ceasing to be a fundamental right would, however, be given express recognition as a legal right, provi¬sions being made that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law.” 10. Thus, where there is utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of a person of its property by the State Authority, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to get possession of the land restored or must ensure that compensation is paid to him. (Vide State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.Manohar. AIR 2005 SC 488 ; and Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2005 All. 44 ). 11. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite parties are directed either to restore the possession of the land or pay compensation. Therefore, in such a fact situation as the petitioners have been dispossessed of their valuable right over the land with utter disregard of the consti¬tutional mandate, we direct the opposite parties to pay compensa¬tion to them or restore possession of the land to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Therefore, in such a fact situation as the petitioners have been dispossessed of their valuable right over the land with utter disregard of the consti¬tutional mandate, we direct the opposite parties to pay compensa¬tion to them or restore possession of the land to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The District Collector, Puri is directed to ensure compli¬ance of this order within the aforesaid stipulated period. I. MAHANTY, J. I agree Petition allowed.