IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP. No.932 of 2007. Date of Decision : April 26, 2010. Smt. Kamlesh. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioners. Mr. P.C.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in taking over the land without authority of the law. According to the petitioner, his land as described in the petition was utilized by the respondents for the construction of a road from Balag to Basadhar. The respondents in their reply have admitted that the land of the petitioner has been used for the construction of the road as aforesaid. The State submits that the petitioner consented to the State entering upon his land carrying out the construction therein. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 The second objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioner has approached this court after a long lapse of time and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed as being barred by delay and laches. The factum of the construction of the road utilizing the land of the petitioner is not disputed by the State. This court in CWP No. 785 of 2007 titled Balak Ram Vs. State of H.P. decided on 25.4.2008 and in Kahan Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others ,2010 Latest Himachal Law Judgment, 365 has held that the property of a citizen cannot be taken away by the State except by due process of law. There can be no dispute of this proposition of law. On the aspect of waiver and consent, I do not find any contemporaneous evidence on record. The contention of the State that the petitioner had never raised any objection to the construction of the road cannot be accepted and the question of delay cannot be used to deny the petitioner’s constitutional right. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the State to acquire the land of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. It is obvious that the intermediate procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 of inviting objection etc. from the petitioner is not to be followed as the road already stands constructed 3 and all that is required is the assessment of the market value of the land in this case. There shall be no order as to costs. The writ petition is disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. April 26,2010(R)