DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 714, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 714 : 2024 INSC 415
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another 
v. 
State of Bihar and Others
(Civil Appeal No 6351 of 2024)
13 May 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
A land owned by the appellant was acquired and he did not receive 
any compensation for the same. Before the Division Bench of the 
High Court, the appellant was informed that value of land was Rs. 
4,68,099/-. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the 
Letters Patent Appeal by asking the appellant to file an appropriate 
application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the 
value of the land. Whether the High Court committed any error in 
passing the impugned order.
Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In 
the year 1977, a land owned by appellant was acquired  – 
Compensation was not paid – The Single Judge of the 
High Court rejected the writ petition on the count that the 
petition had been filed after a period of forty-two years of the 
acquisition – However, the Division Bench of the High Court 
asked the appellant to file an appropriate application before 
the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the 
land assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- – Correctness:
Held: The High Court in its impugned order has stated that the 
appellant herein has been informed about the value of the land 
assessed at Rs 4,68,099 – There is no reason as to on what basis 
this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time this
amount 
came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment of such 
amount – The High Court should have enquired with the State as 
to why in the year 1977 itself, that is the year in which the land 
came to be acquired, the award for compensation was not passed 
– The High Court did not enquire why it took forty-two years for 
the State to determine the figure of Rs 4,68,099 – The High Court 
should also have asked the State the basis of the determination 
of the amount towards compensation – It is a well settled position
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
715
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
of law that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the 
owner of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even 
file an appeal for the enhancement of the same – The High Court 
proceeded on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been 
assessed and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate 
application and get the amount disbursed in his favour – The 
approach adopted by the High Court is not convincing – 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 of 
the Constitution, can be inferred in that Article – The Single Judge 
of the High Court rejected the writ petition only on the ground of 
delay – It is settled that 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 – 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 
the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court 
is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
consideration. [Paras 13, 14, 18, 25, 26, 29]
Case Law Cited
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [2005] 
Supp. 3 SCR 388 :
(2005) 7 SCC 627; N. Padmamma v. S. 
Ramakrishna Reddy [2008] 9 SCR 535 : (2008) 15 SCC 517; 
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2011] 12 SCR 
191 : (2011) 9 SCC 354; Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of 
Gujarat [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 807 : (1995) Supp 1 SCC 596; 
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [2012] 13 SCR 29 : (2013) 1 SCC 
353 – relied on.
K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2011] 13 SCR 
636 : (2011) 9 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [2011] 
14 SCR 211 : (2011) 10 SCC 404; Vidya Devi v. The State of 
Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC 569; 
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [1975] 2 SCR 356 : (1975) 
1 SCC 152 – referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of India.
716
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Acquisition of land; Payment of compensation; Assessment 
of the value of land; Delay in filing petition; Determination of 
compensation; Dispossession from property; Obligation to pay 
compensation; Delay and laches; Promotion of justice.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6351 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 997 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Dharnidhar Jha, Sr. Adv., Jayesh Gaurav, Ms. Diksha Ojha, Ishwar 
Chandra Roy, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Anshul Narayan, Prem Prakash, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1	
Application for substitution to bring on record the legal heirs of the 
first petitioner is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
2	
Leave granted.
3	
This appeal arises from a order passed by the High Court of Judicature 
at Patna dated 7 February 2023 in the Letters Patent Appeal No 
997 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 8408 of 2019 by 
which the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters 
Patent Appeal by asking the appellant herein to file an appropriate 
application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the 
value of the land assessed at Rs 4,68,099.
4	
The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:
In the year 1976, a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition 
Act was issued for the purpose of construction of State Highway as 
notified by the State of Bihar. The land owned by the appellant herein 
was included in Section 4 notification referred to above. Sometime 
in 1977, the land of the appellant was acquired. However, it is the 
case of the appellant that not a single penny was paid to him towards 
compensation.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
717
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
5	
The appellant preferred an appropriate application addressed to the 
State Government immediately after his land came to be acquired 
and possession was taken over in the year 1977 for payment of 
compensation. It is the case of the appellant that State did not even 
pass any award of compensation and kept the matter in limbo.
6	
Years passed by and the appellant kept on requesting the authorities to 
pass an appropriate award and pay the amount towards compensation.
7	
As the respondents did not pay heed to the say of the appellant, 
he was left with no other option but to file a writ petition in the High 
Court of Patna. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single 
Judge and by order dated 19 July 2019 rejected the same only on 
the count that the petition had been filed after a period of forty-two 
years of the acquisition. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned 
Single Judge also observed that the appellant had failed to submit 
any paper or notification in connection with acquisition of his land 
for the purpose of payment of compensation.
8	
Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge 
rejecting his writ petition, the appellant went in appeal. The appeal 
came to be disposed of by a Division Bench in the following terms:
“A hard copy of the supplementary affidavit on behalf 
of the State has been filed across the Board.
Let it be taken on
record.
In view of the categorical stand of the State that the 
land of the appellants had been consumed and that the 
State is ready to compensate the appellants, nothing 
remains in this appeal to be decided.
The appellants have been informed about the value of 
the land has been assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- .
All that the appellants have to do is to file an application 
before the concerned authority as to how the amount 
shall be apportioned between him and his son.
It is expected that the decision in that regard by the State 
Authority shall be taken without any delay as already 
the matter has become five decades old.
The appeal stands disposed of.”
718
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9	
Mr. Dharnidhar Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellant submitted that the State conceded to the fact that the 
land of the appellant had been acquired and was put to use for the 
purpose the same was acquired. He would submit that if the State 
thought fit to acquire the land of his client, then it was obligatory on 
the part of the State to pass an appropriate award determining the 
amount towards compensation. He would submit that it is not the 
case that the appellant herein was lethargic in asserting his rights, 
but rather kept on requesting the authorities concerned to determine 
the amount towards compensation and pay the same.
10	
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State of 
Bihar submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could 
be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the 
impugned order. He would submit that it is not in dispute that the land 
of the appellant was acquired for a public purpose, but at the same 
time, it was the duty of the appellant to pursue the matter further 
for the purpose of getting appropriate compensation determined in 
accordance with law.
11	
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and 
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that 
falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any 
error in passing the impugned order.
12	
We take notice of the fact
that the Single Judge of the High Court 
thought fit to reject the writ petition only on the ground of delay and 
in appeal, the appellate court disposed of the appeal asking the 
appellant herein to file an application before the concerned authority 
for disbursement of the amount of compensation.
13	
We take notice of two things: First, the High Court in its impugned 
order has stated that the appellant herein has been informed about 
the value of the land assessed at Rs 4,68,099. We fail to understand 
on what basis this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time 
this amount came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment 
of such amount. Secondly, the order of the High Court could be 
said to be a non-speaking order. Although at this stage, the learned 
counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that it was an 
order obtained with the consent of the parties, yet there is nothing 
to indicate that any consent was given by the appellant herein to 
pass such an order.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
719
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
14	
The first thing that the High Court should have enquired with the State 
is as to why in the year 1977 itself, that is the year in which the land 
came to be acquired, the award for compensation was not passed. 
The High Court should have enquired why it took forty-two years 
for the State to determine the figure of Rs 4,68,099. The High Court 
should also have asked the State the basis of the determination of 
the amount towards compensation. It is a well settled position of law 
that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the owner 
of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even file an 
appeal for the enhancement of the same. The High Court proceeded 
on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been assessed 
and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate application and 
get the amount disbursed in his favour.
15	
We are not convinced but rather disappointed with the approach of 
the High Court while disposing of the appeal.
16	
There are many issues arising in this litigation and the High Court 
should have taken little pains to ask the State why it made the 
appellant run from pillar to post. It is sad to note that the appellant 
passed away fighting for his right to receive compensation. Now the 
legal heirs of the appellant are pursuing this litigation.
17	
In 1976, when the land of the appellant came to be acquired 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, which could not be deprived without due process of law 
and upon just and fair compensation.
18	
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 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. [See: K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State 
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1]
19	
In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai reported 
in (2005) 7 SCC 627, this Court held that:
720
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 
300-A 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)
20	
In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy reported in (2008) 15 
SCC 517, 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 300-A of the Constitution 
protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to 
divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of 
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly 
construed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21	
In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 
9 SCC 354, this Court recognised 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)
22	
In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 
Supp (1) SCC 596, this Court held as follows: 
“48. … In other words, Article 300-A only limits the 
powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
721
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
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 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, 
there is no deprivation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
23	
In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353, 
this Court 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.
24	
This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2011) 
10 SCC 404 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 multi-faceted dimension.
25	
We regret to state that the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
did not deem fit even to enquire with the State whether just and fair 
compensation was paid to the appellant or not. The learned Single 
Judge rejected the writ petition only on the ground of delay. As held 
by this court in Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, 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. The condition of delay is 
a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously 
and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. As held 
by this Court, it would 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.
26	
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. [See: P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. 
State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152]
27	
In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353, this 
Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows:
722
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“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)
28	
In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that 
we should set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court 
and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
29	
In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The 
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the 
matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. Letters 
Patent Appeal No 997 of 2019 is restored to its original file. The High 
Court shall hear
both the sides and pass an appropriate order in 
accordance with what has been observed by this Court in this order. 
We request the High Court to decide the matter within a period of 
two months from today.
30	 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.