JUDGMENT : ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J. 1. The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2735 of 2019, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2. As per the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner, he is recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2208/1 area 0.78 acres situated at Village Dabhara, Patwari Halka No. 22, Tahsil Dabhara. In the year 1979, possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road, but, till date the respondents authorities have not paid any compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land. The appellant also made representation before the authorities, but till date, no compensation is given against the acquired land. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 2735 of 2019 before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.1.2020 on the ground of delay and laches. 3. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 , Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation vs. Jabar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 112, New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 , P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 , Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 136 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 , the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and observed as under: “3. This Court finds that the writ petition is highly belated. No plausible explanation has been given for not approaching the competent Court of law or even to the Writ Court for a period of 40 years. Four decades is a very long time for any person to seek relief of whatsoever nature be it. The petition is highly belated for the reason that petition was aware of his property having been taken by the respondents more than 40 years back itself. Four decades is a very long time for any person to seek relief of whatsoever nature be it. The petition is highly belated for the reason that petition was aware of his property having been taken by the respondents more than 40 years back itself. The non raising of claim for a period of 40 years, this Court is forced to draw an inference that the petitioner must have acquiesced of his right arising out of the alleged taking over of the property belonging to the petitioner by the respondents. 4. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that against an impugned order, if a person wishes to approach the Court invoking writ jurisdiction, he should approach the Court within a reasonable period. The reasonable period cannot be stretch to the extent of more than a decade.” Hence, the instant appeal by the petitioner. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the right to property is not only a human right but also a constitutional right. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India protects such right and the constitutional right cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. According to the reply filed by the respondents/State in this writ appeal, the State admitted the fact that the land has been utilised for construction of the road. The State further admitted the fact that compensation has not been paid and also admitted the fact that the State failed to produce the record of any land acquisition proceeding with regard to the land in question. Thus, it is well established that without there being issuance of any notice, payment of compensation, possession of the land has been taken by the State, which is illegal. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge are with respect to service jurisprudence/service law. None of the decisions cited or relied on by the learned Single Judge is in respect of land acquisition. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge are with respect to service jurisprudence/service law. None of the decisions cited or relied on by the learned Single Judge is in respect of land acquisition. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 , it was argued that in that case the Supreme Court, condoning the delay of 42 years, directed payment of all the statutory benefits including the award compensation, solatium and interest etc. It was further submitted that in the instant case the appellant’s land has been forcefully utilised by the State Government without paying any compensation and without following due process of law and the same is not only violative of human rights, but also constitutional rights of the appellant. In this regard, reliance was also placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 AIR Online SC 466. 5. It was argued by learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents that according to the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner, the subject land was acquired in the year 1979, but, the appellant for the first time preferred representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 6.9.2018. The ground for delay has not been explained satisfactorily by the appellant. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Further referring to the document at Annexure R1, the learned State Counsel submitted that the subject land of the appellant was duly acquired and thereafter compensation was also ascertained. However, the appellant declined to accept the compensation and, therefore, the amount of compensation was not paid to him. Thus, it was argued by the learned State Counsel that on merit also, the appellant’s case is not sustainable as he himself declined to accept the compensation. 6. We have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 7. Undisputedly, the appellant/petitioner was the recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2208/1 area 0.78 acres situated at Village Dabhara. According to the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner, the said land was taken by the State authorities in the year 1979 for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road. 7. Undisputedly, the appellant/petitioner was the recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2208/1 area 0.78 acres situated at Village Dabhara. According to the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner, the said land was taken by the State authorities in the year 1979 for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road. It is also not in dispute that for the first time in the year 2018 the appellant moved an application for compensation before the respondents authorities. Thereafter, on 2.8.2019, he filed the writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 21.1.2020 on the ground of delay and laches. The judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge relates to service laws only, not to any land acquisition proceedings. 8. Dealing with the issue of delay and laches in filing a writ petition in Vidya Devi (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the ground of delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuous cause of action or if the circumstances shakes the judicial conscience of the Court. It was further observed that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights and the remedy claimed and when and how delay has arisen. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the Courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. The relevant paragraphs of Vidya Devi (supra) are reproduced as under: “2. The respondent State took over the land of the appellant in 1967-68 for the construction of a major district road being the Nadaun - Sujanpur road, a major district road without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings, or following due process of law. The construction of the road was completed by 1975. 12.8. The contention of the State that the appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the appellant of her property by the State. 12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the appellant of her property by the State. 12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. 12.14. In Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. MIDC, this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows: (SCC p. 359, Para 11) “11. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In Sukh Dutt (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Vidya Devi (supra). The facts of the case in hand appear to be identical to the facts of Vidya Devi (supra). The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In Sukh Dutt (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Vidya Devi (supra). The facts of the case in hand appear to be identical to the facts of Vidya Devi (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, the order passed in the writ petition does not appear to be in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi (supra) and Sukh Dutt (supra). 10. As regards the merits of the case, admittedly, the appellant/petitioner is the owner of the subject land which was taken by the State authorities in the year 1979 for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road. In paragraph 5 of their return filed in the instant appeal, the respondents/State categorically pleaded that the land of the appellant/petitioner was duly acquired and thereafter the compensation was also ascertained. However, as the appellant/ petitioner declined to accept the compensation, the amount of compensation was not paid to him. In this regard, letter dated 14.10.2020 written by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sakti to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, Champa (Annexure R1) has also been filed by the respondents, wherein it is mentioned that in Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83 total compensation amount of Rs.8662.50 had been determined with regard to the land in question and since the appellant/petitioner declined to accept the compensation, the amount of compensation was not paid to him. The appellant/petitioner denied the above averment of the respondents and categorically stated that he is not aware about any land acquisition proceeding bearing Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83. He did not receive any notice nor did he decline acceptance of any compensation. Looking to the above contentions of both the parties, a specific direction was given to the respondents to submit the record of above land acquisition proceeding, i.e. Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83, but the respondents failed to submit any record of any land acquisition proceeding. The counsel for the respondents submitted some record for perusal of this Court during hearing of the instant appeal. The same relates to Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83. We have perused the record of Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83. It does not reflect that any land acquisition proceeding was drawn. The counsel for the respondents submitted some record for perusal of this Court during hearing of the instant appeal. The same relates to Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83. We have perused the record of Revenue Case No. 39/V-82/82-83. It does not reflect that any land acquisition proceeding was drawn. We have not found any document on this record to show how compensation amount for the land in question was determined. We have also not seen any document to show that any notice was issued to the appellant/petitioner for acceptance of the compensation. We have also not found any document to show that the appellant/petitioner or his predecessor refused to receive the compensation at any point of time. Though page 69 of the said record shows that the compensation of Rs. 8,662 was determined, this document also does not contain any signature or seal or date. It is a plain paper wherein some entries are made. Thus, we do not find any substance in the argument raised on behalf of the State/respondents that land acquisition proceeding was drawn, notice was issued to the appellant/petitioner for acceptance of the compensation determined and the appellant/petitioner refused to receive the said compensation. Thus, it is clear that without initiating a land acquisition proceeding, the respondents had taken the land in question for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road. The respondents have failed to establish that they had acquired the subject land in accordance with law and paid compensation to the appellant/petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to carry out fresh demarcation of the subject land and thereafter proceed for acquisition and grant due compensation in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs.