JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 932 of 2007, titled as Smt. Kamlesh versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition was allowed, for short ‘the impugned judgment’. 2. In the writ petition, in para-3, it is specifically averred that the writ petitioner has come to the court after a lapse of 20 years, after the possession of the land in question was taken over by the writ respondents. He has not explained the delay, as such, is caught by delay and laches. 3. The similar question arose before this Court for determination in Shankar Dass versus State of Himachal Pradesh & connected matter, reported in 2013(2) Him. LR (FB) 698. It is apt to reproduce the concluding para of the aforesaid judgment herein:- “10. In view of above, the reference is answered as follows: “Where a person has willingly surrendered his land to the State with consent, then he cannot seek a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of land surrendered by him to the State. In case dispute arises about the validity of consent in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, then such dispute is to be determined in that proceeding in accordance with law. The writ petition for a direction to the State to acquire the land taken over by the State can be filed by the aggrieved person within the time prescribed for civil suit for the relief prayed from the date of cause of action.” 11. The petitions be placed before appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law. 2.3.2013 (Kuldip Singh) Judge Per Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral). The petitions be placed before appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law. 2.3.2013 (Kuldip Singh) Judge Per Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral). As per the view of the majority, the Reference is answered as follows: “In cases where the State has not taken steps under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of roads on the ground that the required land had been willingly surrendered either orally or otherwise or with implied or express consent by the owners at the relevant time, they can invoke the jurisdiction refuting such express or implied consent or the stand of the State on voluntary surrender, only within the time within which such a relief can be claimed in a Civil Suit. Once such a question is thus raised in a Writ Petition the same can be considered in the Writ Petition itself.” 4. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case, supra, the impugned judgment is bad in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed.