The Appellant was granted liberty to file a Civil Suit.
4In 2004, some similarly situated persons whose lands had also been taken over by the RespondentState for the same public purpose, filed CWP No.1192 of 2004 titled Anakh Singh Ors.
10 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9The Appellant has filed the present Appeals before this Court, to challenge the Judgment dated 11.09.2013 passed in the Writ Petition and Order dated 13.05.2014 passed in the Review Petition.
105 min/127, Khasra No.
Furthermore, the Writ Petition was barred by laches, since the road was companystructed in 196768, and metalled since 1975.
State of Himachal Pradesh Ors.
8Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Review Petition against the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2013 which was dismissed vide Order dated 13.05.2014.
The land was utilized by the RespondentState after the Appellant and her predecessorsininterest had verbally companysented to the land being taken over without any objection.
The companystruction of the road was companypleted by 1975.
7The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2013 held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which companyld number be adjudicated in Writ proceedings.
70 in Tika Jalari Bhaddirain, Mauja Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, Dist.
3The Appellant, being an illiterate widow, companying from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did number file any proceedings for companypensation of the land companypulsorily taken over by the State.
The High Court vide Order dated 23.04.2007, allowed CWP No.1192 of 2004, and directed the RespondentState to acquire the lands of the Writ Petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
1The Appellant number almost 80 years old, was undisputedly the owner of land admeasuring about 3.34 Hectares companyprised in Khata Khatuni No.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
