JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the above captioned cases, coupled with the fact that similar relief has been claimed, all these matters were heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common order. 2. Petitioners, in all the above captioned cases, are aggrieved on account of non-payment of compensation qua their land used for construction of road namely Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan. In year 1994 respondent/ State constructed aforesaid road using land of the petitioners, but without initiating proceedings for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (herein after to be referred as “ Act ”), as a result whereof, no compensation has been paid to the petitioners till date. Since despite repeated requests, respondents failed to initiate acquisition proceedings, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs: “(i) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Court petition may be allowed through with cost and the respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner utilized for the construction of road from Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo in Tehsil Ramshehar, earlier Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation ad Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in a time bound manner and pay the compensation to the petitioners and other benefits including payment of damages of the land illegally utilized since 2005 till the compensation is awarded in their favour after summoning the record of the respondents and justice be done.” 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent/ State has filed reply in all the above captioned cases and rejoinders thereto also stand filed. Claim, put forth in the instant petition on behalf of the petitioners, has been sought to be refuted by respondents on the ground of delay and laches. Apart from above, it has been also claimed on behalf of the respondents that while road was bein g constructed, no objection was ever raised, rather residents of that area including petitioners voluntarily donated the land for construction of link road with the clear understanding that they shall not claim any compensation. 4. Mr. Apart from above, it has been also claimed on behalf of the respondents that while road was bein g constructed, no objection was ever raised, rather residents of that area including petitioners voluntarily donated the land for construction of link road with the clear understanding that they shall not claim any compensation. 4. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to use of the land of the petitioners for construction of road in question, argued that though there is no written document adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that land was ever donated or there was any consent, but certainly implied consent can be inferred from the fact that petitioners remained silent for more than 25 years, which fact itself is sufficient to establish factum with regard to implied consent on behalf of the petitioners for construction of road in question through their land. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while inviting the attention of this Court to judgment passed by this Court in Shankar Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. in CWP No. 1966 of 2010 submitted that otherwise also, appropriate remedy, if any, for the petitioners for redressal of their grievance is to approach a Civil Court by way of Civil suit. While referring to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar 1995 (4) SCC 683 , learned Advocate General further argued that the claim being highly stale, deserves outright rejection. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing petitioners, while refuting aforesaid submission made by learned Advocate General, contended that, at no point of time consent, if any, was given by the petitioners for the construction of road through their land without payment of compensation, rather immediately after completion of road, they all have been repeatedly making request to the authorities for initiation of acquisition proceedings, but in vain. While making this Court peruse judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2020 (2) SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. While making this Court peruse judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2020 (2) SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2022 (7) SCC 508 , the above named counsel argued that plea of delay and laches is not available to the respondent/ State, especially when, it is not in dispute that on account of non acquisition of land of the petitioners, which has been already put to use, petitioners herein are suffering continuously. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that the facts, as have been noticed herein above are not in dispute, rather stand admitted, and as such, need not be discussed again. There is no dispute that the land of the petitioners stands utilized for construction of road as detailed herein above. It is also not in dispute that respondents, before using land of the petitioners for road in question, had never initiated proceedings under the Act, as a consequence thereof compensation, if any, was never paid to the petitioners. Interestingly, in the case at hand, respondents in their reply have categorically admitted the fact of their having paid compensation to the other persons, whose land was also acquired for the construction of road in question. If it is so, plea of implied consent sought to be raised, is not available to them, once some land owners already stand paid compensation qua the road in question, coupled with the fact that land of the petitioners stands utilized for construction of road. Prayer made on behalf of the petitioners otherwise cannot be allowed to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in judgments rendered in Vidya Devi and Sukhdutt Ratra (supra) has categorically held that plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in case of continuous cause of action or if circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court, it can always condone the delay to do the substanti al justice. While holding that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion. Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgments categorically held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. While holding that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion. Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgments categorically held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. Most importantly in aforesaid judgments, it came to be categorically ruled that forcible dispossession of a person from his private property without following due process of law, is violative of both, human right and constitutional right, guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It would be apt to take note of the fact that Vidya Devi and Sukhdutt Ratra (supra): “10.1. The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to private property 1, which could not be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation. 10.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right 2 in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai4, wherein this Court held that: “ 6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.” (emphasis supplied) In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, this Court held that: “21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.” (emphasis supplied) In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P.& Ors., this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: “30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property."Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.” (emphasis supplied) In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, this Court held as follows : “48. …In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” (emphasis supplied) 10.3. In this case, the Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967. 10.4. 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. 10.5. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. 10.5. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.8 wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension. 10.6. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case. 10.7. 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. 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. 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. In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors., this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows : “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 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. 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)” 8. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sukhdutt Ratra’s cases (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “23. This Court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances – rejected the contention of ‘oral’ consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the State: “12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn., wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 12.10. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension.” 24. And with regards to the contention of delay and laches, this court went on to hold: “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 dis cretion, 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. 25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A, this court allowed the appeal. We find that the approach taken by this court in Vidya Devi (supra) is squarely applicable to the nearly identical facts before us in the present case. 26. In view of the above discussion, in view of this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is hereby directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005 in Land Ref. Petition No. 10-LAC/4 of 2004 (and consolidated matters). Petition No. 10-LAC/4 of 2004 (and consolidated matters). The Respondent- State is directed, consequently to ensure that the appropriate Land Acquisition Collector computes the compensation, and disburses it to the appellants, within four months from today. The appellants would also be entitled to consequential benefits of solatium, and interest on all sums payable under law w.e.f 16.10.2001 (i.e. date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act), till the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 12.09.2013.” 9. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the contention advanced by learned Advocate General with regard to delay and laches on the part of the appellant in moving the court deserves outright rejection, especially when it is not in dispute that on account of non-acquisition of land and non- payment of compensation, petitioners are suffering continuous loss. Since in aforesaid judgments, it has been categorically held that no land owner can be dispossessed from his land without following due process of law, ground raised by the respondents that the petitioners made their land available with consent, is of no consequence, rather this Court, having taken note of the fact that land of the petitioners already stand utilized for construction of road in question, is compelled to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for compensation qua the land utilized for construction of road in question. 10. Though at this stage, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while making reference to judgment dated 24.02.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1278 of 2023 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajiv & Ors., attempted to ague that the relief, as sought in the instant petition , cannot be allowed on account of delay and laches, but having perused judgment supra, this Court finds no force in the aforesaid submission. In the aforesaid judgment, it never came to be held that claim of land owner for compensation can be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay, rather in the aforesaid case, claimants were not held entitled to the interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of filing of the writ petition. 11. In the aforesaid judgment, it never came to be held that claim of land owner for compensation can be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay, rather in the aforesaid case, claimants were not held entitled to the interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of filing of the writ petition. 11. Since, in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that at no point of time notification, if any, under Section 4 of the Act ever came to be issued, reliance, if any, placed on aforesaid judgments, is of not much help to the respondents. Use of petitioner's land for construction of road without there being any payment of compensation of the petitioners clearly amounts to forcible dispossession from their land, which is violative of provision contained under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 12. In case titled, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that State of Himachal Pradesh is a hilly area and without workable roads, no communication is possible; every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India; every person has right under Article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India to move freely, throughout the territory of India; for the residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself. Stand taken by the respondents that there was a policy for providing roads on demand of residents as a favour to them on conditions that they would not claim compensation, cannot be sustained because such stand is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 13. In case titled Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , 2020 9 SCC 356 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that though right to property is not a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also a human right; in view of the mandate of Article 300A, no person can be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. No doubt, State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner of the land for the benefit of public, but at the same time, it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation. 14. No doubt, State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner of the land for the benefit of public, but at the same time, it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petitions and accordingly the same are allowed with direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioners and thereafter, just and fair compensation qua the same be awarded to them. Since petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claim for long, this Court hopes and trusts that authority concerned would do the needful expeditiously, preferably, within two months from today. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.