JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:“ a) That the Respondents may be directed to produce entire relevant record in connection with construction of Khala Kiar to Koti Dhiman road including survey, construction work, record in connection with acquisition of land required for construction of this road. Also, respondents, may be directed to produce entire record for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court showing details of proceedings as held by them on receipt of Representations and Demand Notice as to how they have dealt with the same and what is the stage of proceedings. b) Appropriate orders and directions may kindly be issued to the Respondents that they should not deprive the petitioner of her land without adopting due process of Law and that they should start emergent provisions of Law for acquisition of her land and for payment of amount of compensation.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is recorded owner-in-possession of land comprised in Khata No.95, Khatauni No.173, Kite 9, measuring 25.10 bighas, situated at Mohal Kando-Haryas, Tehsil Dadahu, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. Had Bast No. as per jamabandi for the year 201516, in terms of jamabandi for the year 20152016, appended with the petition as Annexure P1. 3. As per the petitioner for the purpose of construction of Khala Kiar to Koti Dhiman, in Tehsil Renuka, District Sirmaur, H.P., the land of the petitioner mentioned hereinabove was utilized by the State, which construction was undertaken by the Department concerned in the year 199596 by taking physical possession of the land forcibly from her. She resisted to the said illegal and unlawful entry of the respondents upon her land, but she was assured by the authorities concerned that her land would be acquired as per law and due and admissible compensation would be paid to her, but as due compensation was not been paid to the petitioner with regard to the land which stands utilized by the State for the construction of the road, hence the petition. 4. 4. The petition is resisted by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the land of the petitioner which was utilized for the purpose of construction of link road from Village Khala Kiar to Koti Dhiman, was utilized on the persistent demand of the people of the area including the petitioner to provide connectivity for which they had voluntarily surrendered their land and as the land was voluntarily permitted to be used by the petitioner for the purpose of construction of the road, therefore, presently at such a belated stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek the reliefs as are being prayed in the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings on record. 6. It is a matter of record that for the purpose of construction of the road from Village Khala Kiar to Kotli Dhiman, the land of the petitioner has been utilized. It is also a matter of record that the land was so utilized without acquiring the same as per law and without paying any compensation to the petitioner. Whereas, on one hand, the stand of the petitioner is that she was assured by the authorities concerned that due and admissible compensation would be paid to her vis-a-vis the land of her which was utilized by the State after acquiring the same as per law, the stand of the State is that the land was voluntarily handed over/surrendered by the petitioner for the purpose of construction of the road. 7. It is settled law that the State cannot utilize the land of a private individual without compensating the individual in terms of the law of land. The only exception in case is when the land is voluntarily handed over by the petitioner to the authorities concerned for construction of the road, but then there either has to be a Sale Deed in favour of the State/Department or a Gift Deed etc. from which it can be inferred that the handing over of the land by the individual to the State is a voluntarily act. 8. from which it can be inferred that the handing over of the land by the individual to the State is a voluntarily act. 8. Coming back to the facts of this case, except the bald assertion made in the reply by the respondents that the land was voluntarily handed over by the petitioner to the respondents for construction of the road, there is no cogent material on record appended with the reply to substantiate this contention. Thus, the only inference which can be drawn in this background is that the land was not voluntarily handed over by the petitioner to the respondent-Department as there is neither any Sale Deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents nor any Gift Deed etc. in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. 9. As far as the issue of delays and latches is concerned, in the present case the land was utilized for the purpose of construction of the road in the year 1995-96. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vidya Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 569, has been inter alia pleased to hold that the contention advanced by the State on the issue of delays and latches is liable to be rejected, for the reason that delays and latches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action and if the circumstances of a case shock the judicial conscience of the Court, then otherwise also condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that this judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case and it will depend upon the breach of the fundamental rights and the remedy claimed and when and how the delay arose. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the appellant therein being an illiterate person, who was a widow, coming from the rural area was deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant was divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century and therefore, the cause of action was continuing when since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The appellant was divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century and therefore, the cause of action was continuing when since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. If the findings returned by Hon’ble Supreme Court are juxtaposed visavis the facts of the present case, then one finds that herein also the petitioner is an old lady who presently is more than eighty two years old and who is a widow and who is a rustic villagers. She has been deprived of her property by the respondent-State in the year 1995-96 without any legal sanction and without following any due process of law. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as the cause of action is still continuing because the property is being utilized by the State without properly compensating the petitioner, therefore, the plea of delays and latches is not available to the respondents and this issue otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Sureme Court refereed to hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent/State is directed to acquire the property of the petitioner as per law and pay due and admissible compensation to her as per law by completing the entire process within a period of six months from today. Alternatively, the State is at liberty to hand over the possession of the land of the petitioner which was so utilized by it for the purpose of construction of the road. 11. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.