JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)—By way of present petition, petitioners have sought directions to respondents to pay compensation to them after acquiring their lands in accordance with law utilized for construction of Maryog via Narag-Shariar (Ochhghat Narag Dharyar) Road. It is claimed by petitioners that the said road was constructed without acquiring the land in accordance with law and also without consent of owners. 2. Petitioners have placed on record jamabandies of villages Sharia Bhajog and Masria Panjhopad (Annexure P-1 and P-2), wherein land measuring 0-5 bigha in Khasra No. 89, 0-5 bigha in Khasra No. 150, 0-3 bigha in Khasra No. 61, 0-2 bigha in Khasra No. 145 situated in village Sharia Bhagog and land measuring 0-2 bighas in Khasra No. 486, 0-3 bigha in Khara No. 288 and 0-2 bigha in Khasra No. 295 situated in village Masria Panjhopad belonging to petitioners have been reflected as Gair Mumkin Sarak. 3. Petitioners have relied document Annexure P-3, copy of letter issued by Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, Solan to Executive Engineer, Nahan Division, HPPWD Nahan, whereby he had forwarded notification dated 28th August, 1986 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pertaining to nineteen villages including villages of petitioners for publication intending to acquire land of petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 89/1, 150/1, 61 and 145/1 of village Sharia Bhajog and land comprised in Khasra No. 288/1 and 295/2 of village Masria Phajheped utilized by respondents for construction of the Daryar-Narag-Ochhghat Road. 4. It is submitted by petitioners that said proposal of acquisition/notification was allowed to lapse by respondents for negligence of concerned authorities. Failure of respondents to acquire the land of petitioners utilized for construction of road led issuance of notice dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-4) to respondents asking for acquisition of land in question. Inaction of respondents to acquire the land followed filing of present petition in the year 2009 invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In reply to the petition, utilization of land of petitioners for construction of road, non-payment of compensation for the said utilization and issuance of notice by petitioners are not disputed. Inaction of respondents to acquire the land followed filing of present petition in the year 2009 invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In reply to the petition, utilization of land of petitioners for construction of road, non-payment of compensation for the said utilization and issuance of notice by petitioners are not disputed. However, dismissal of petition has been sought for delay and laches on the part of petitioners with further averments that land in question was utilized for construction of road between KM 17/0 to 18/0 in the year 1975-76 and the said construction was never objected nor compensation was sought for the said land utilized for construction of link road, rather construction was allowed and petitioners are enjoying usufructs of this connectivity and therefore, after such an inordinate delay of about 33 years, petitioners are not entitled to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that petitioners have raised highly disputed question of law and fact in respect to the damage caused to them for user of their land, which cannot be adjudicated in present writ petition, but only in a civil suit. In support of their plea, respondents have relied upon judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 5 SCC 683 . 6. During pendency of petition, in response to direction to file fresh supplementary affidavit specifically stating therein about steps/initiative taken in pursuance to proposal to acquire land dated 28.8.1986 Annexure P-3 and notice dated 10.1.2006 Annexure P-4, affidavit of Superintending Engineer concerned on behalf of respondent No. 3 was filed, stating that no steps/initiatives were taken by respondents-Department pursuant to Annexure P-3 and P-4 for the reason that case of petitioners seeking acquisition at a belated stage was found time barred and despite the fact that Land Acquisition Officer prepared draft papers for acquisition during the year, 1987, respondents had rightly not issued/published the said notice and in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Digambar''s case, no action was taken by the Government in pursuance to notification under Section 4 (Annexure P-3) and also notice (Annexure P-4). Respondents also relied upon judgments of Full Bench passed in CWP No. 1966 of 2010, titled Shankar Das v. State of H.P., decided on 2.3.2013 , wherein it was held as under:- "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." Respondents have also referred judgments passed in CWP No. 649 of 2015, Ram Murti & others v. State of H.P. & others, decided on 29.4.2015 , CWP Nos. 661 to 664 of 2015, Nikka Ram and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.7.2015 , RSA No. 6 of 2014 State of H.P. and others v. Baldev and others, decided on 14.10.2015 and CWP No. 6945 of 2013 Sant Ram & others v. State of H.P. & others, decided on 16.9.2013 , wherein, as per respondents, this Court had declined to issue directions to pay compensation to land owners in similar circumstances. It is also submitted that judgment in Sant Ram''s case has attained finality as the Apex Court had also dismissed SLP (C) 215/2015 on 28.11.2006 preferred by land owner petitioner, with observation that no legal and valid ground for interference was found. 7. Petitioners have relied upon judgments passed by this High Court in Jai Ram v. State of H.P. & others, 2011 (3) Shim. LC 91 , CWP No. 5023 of 2010, Tek Chand and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and CWP No. 3467 of 2009 Shri Prakarti Bhushan Singh v. The State of H.P. and others, decided on 7.7.2016 and 11.8.2016 , respectively, wherein as per petitioners, direction to acquire land has been issued in similar circumstances. LC 91 , CWP No. 5023 of 2010, Tek Chand and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and CWP No. 3467 of 2009 Shri Prakarti Bhushan Singh v. The State of H.P. and others, decided on 7.7.2016 and 11.8.2016 , respectively, wherein as per petitioners, direction to acquire land has been issued in similar circumstances. Reliance has also been put on judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9105 of 2015 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2373 of 2014) titled Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. , wherein it has been held as under:- "There is in our opinion considerable merit in the submission made by Mr. Nag. It is true that the appellant had approached the High court rather belatedly inasmuch the land had been utilized for some time in the year 1985-86 while the writ petition was filed by the appellant in the year 2009. At the same time it is clear from the pleadings in the case at hand that the user of the land owned by the appellant is not denied by the State in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court or that filed before us. It is also evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit that the State has not sought any donation in its favour either by the appellant or his predecessor in interest during whose life time the road in question was constructed. All that is stated in the counter affidavit is that the erstwhile owner of the land "might have donated" the land to the State Government. In the absence of any specific assertion regarding any such donation or documentary evidence to support the same, we are not inclined to accept the ipsit disit suggesting any such donation. If that be so as it indeed is, we fail to appreciate why the State should have given up the land acquisition proceedings initiated by it in relation to the land of the appellant herein. The fact that the State Government had initiated such proceedings is not in dispute nor is it disputed that the same were allowed to lapse just because the road had in the meantime been taken under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. The fact that the State Government had initiated such proceedings is not in dispute nor is it disputed that the same were allowed to lapse just because the road had in the meantime been taken under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. It is also not in dispute that for the very same road the land owned by Kanwar Singh another owner had not only been notified for acquisition but duly paid for in terms of Award No. 10 of 2008." 8. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that in present case there was no implied or express consent of the owners of land and for that reason only State had initiated process for acquisition of land in question by taking steps for issuing notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and also after acquiring land of adjoining villages, used for the same road, compensation was paid to land owners and as there was no implied or express consent of owners in present case, it is not covered by law laid by the Full Bench of this High Court in Shankar Das''s case, in which the owners had willingly surrendered their lands either orally or otherwise or with implied or express consent for construction of road but, later on, were asking for compensation. 9. The ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Shankar''s case will be applicable in those cases where not only State has not initiated any steps for acquisition of land but also claims consent of land owners for construction of road. In present case Respondents have not placed on record any document to establish consent of owners at the time of construction of road or any point of time thereafter. Rather, State had initiated process for acquisition and termination of that process was for delay and laches but not for consent of land owners. Therefore, judgment of Shankar Das''s case (FB) is not applicable to present case. Rather, State had initiated process for acquisition and termination of that process was for delay and laches but not for consent of land owners. Therefore, judgment of Shankar Das''s case (FB) is not applicable to present case. All other cases relied upon by respondents-State also not deal with the issue where the road was constructed, compensation was paid to some of adjoining land owners and acquisition of land, utilized for construction of road, was proposed by undertaking process for issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but allowed to lapse for laxity on part of authorities/department concerned despite having no consent of land owners to utilize the land for road construction. Therefore, on facts, case law cited by respondents is distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. 10. In Sant Ram''s case, land of petitioners therein was utilized for construction of road, but without undertaking any process for its acquisition under the Act. Whereas, in present case, State itself had proposed acquisition of land in question by preparing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for publication. Therefore, ratio of law laid down in the said case is not applicable in present case. In Ram Murti''s and Nikka Ram''s case, road was construction under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sarak Yojna (PMGSY) on popular demand of people of area, only after voluntarily surrender of possession of their lands by villagers, whereas in present case, road is not constructed under PMGSY and there is nothing on record to establish that road was constructed on popular demand of people of area only after surrender of possession by villagers. Rather, contrary to that, there is a proposal of acquisition of land in question which was deliberately allowed to be lapsed for inaction on part of State, but payment of compensation to other land owners for utilization of their land for the same road has not been denied. Therefore, State cannot claim benefit on account of its own inaction as proposal of State has raised hope that sooner or later their land is going to be acquired. 11. In Baldev Sing''s case (RSA No. 6 of 2014) , relief of compensation or recovery of possession was declined by the Court for the reason that plaintiffs had not prayed for the said relief in their pleadings and no foundation was laid for that relief. 11. In Baldev Sing''s case (RSA No. 6 of 2014) , relief of compensation or recovery of possession was declined by the Court for the reason that plaintiffs had not prayed for the said relief in their pleadings and no foundation was laid for that relief. Whereas in present case, petitioners have specifically prayed for direction to respondents to pay compensation after acquisition of land in question. Therefore, this judgment is also not relevant in present case. 12. In Jai Ram''s case supra this Court has held that in absence of consent of land owners, the act of State or its agencies, to utilize private lands without payment of compensation to the land owners, is not permissible under law being contrary to mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and not raising of objection by land owner when his land is being encroached upon either by State or its agencies or even by private persons, does not disentitle him to seek his legal remedy. 13. Though Article 19 (f) of the Constitution of India, declaring right to acquire, hold and dispose of property a fundamental right, has been omitted by Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20.6.1979, however by the same Amendment Act, Chapter 4 in part XII of the Constitution, containing Article 300A declaring that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, has been inserted w.e.f. 20.6.1979. 14. In case Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others, (2005) 7 SCC 627 , the Apex Court, having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, has held it to be akin to a fundamental right and in view of these provisions, the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain can interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same, only for a public purpose and paying reasonable compensation therefor. 15. Constitution provides protection from depriving a person of his property except by due process of law. State cannot be permitted to practice and propagate principle of might is right, as "Rule of Law" is the basic essence of the Constitution and any arbitrary act is antitheses to rule of law. 15. Constitution provides protection from depriving a person of his property except by due process of law. State cannot be permitted to practice and propagate principle of might is right, as "Rule of Law" is the basic essence of the Constitution and any arbitrary act is antitheses to rule of law. In present case, State has adopted pick and choose method and has acquired land of some of land owners utilized for construction of same road, but has left petitioners without paying any compensation. 16. State is custodian of rights of citizens and life and property of citizens is to be protected, not to be grabbed by the State. It is duty of State to establish and maintain "Rule of Law". 17. In K.B. Ramchandra Raje Urs (dead) by legal representatives v. State of Karnataka and others, (2016) 3 SCC 422 , the Apex Court has held that writ petitioners may not be entertained and any order thereon may not be passed for inordinately delayed in filing petition with further observation that this issue need not to detain the Court from entertaining such petition as time and again it has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution, the High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation and if substantial issue of public importance touching upon the fairness of governmental action is raised, the delayed approach to reach the Court, will not stand in the way of exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. In present case, it is undisputed that land owners of adjacent villagers were compensated for using their lands for construction of the same road for which land of persons was utilized, but despite initiating proposal for publication of Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act, intending acquisition of land of petitioners and other villagers, the same was dropped, depriving the petitioners from lawful compensation, for which they were and are entitled. State is supposed to act impartially and fairly, but the facts in the present case establish that State has acted arbitrarily and unfairly, therefore, plea of delay and laches raised by respondents to oust petitioners, cannot be a ground to dismiss present petition. 18. State is supposed to act impartially and fairly, but the facts in the present case establish that State has acted arbitrarily and unfairly, therefore, plea of delay and laches raised by respondents to oust petitioners, cannot be a ground to dismiss present petition. 18. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court almost in similar circumstances in Shankar Singh and others v. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 3031 of 2009, decided on 7.7.2016 and Shri Prakarti Bhushan Singh v. The State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 3467 of 2009, decided on 11.8.2016 has directed respondent-State to acquire land, utilized for constriction of road, in accordance with law. 19. In view ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court and in pronouncements of this High Court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as discussed above, petition is allowed and respondents are directed to initiate acquisition process within three months from production/receipt of copy, whichever is earlier, to acquire land of petitioners utilized without paying any compensation for construction of road and to ensure completion of process and payment of compensation within time stipulated in the relevant provisions of law as applicable. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.