As per case facts, the Petitioners claimed ownership of land in Village Birpur, which was previously owned by their predecessor-in-interest. Revenue records consistently showed their family as owners and cultivators, ... but Respondent corporations had been in unauthorized possession of the land for decades without formal acquisition or compensation. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition after struggling to access records and obtaining demarcation reports confirming the illegal occupation. The Respondents countered, raising objections of delay, laches, and disputed facts. The question arose whether the State could justify the unauthorized deprivation of private property using doctrines like delay and laches, especially when official records confirm the illegality. Finally, the Court ruled that delay and laches cannot be a shield for the State to violate a citizen's constitutional right to property under Article 300-A, particularly when the State's actions are high-handed and shock judicial conscience. The Court directed the Respondents to either return the land or initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for the unauthorized occupation within three months.