IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
HEMANT GUPTA, CJ, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, JJ.
Munawwar Ali & others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & others - Respondents
W.P. No. 8830 of 2017
Decided On : 13-11-2017
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Bhopal Development Plan-2005 - Bhopal Development Plan-1991
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed adverse possession of the land and challenged the demolition drive carried out by the respondents for a Smart City project. They argued that the project deviated from the development plan and that their possession of the land should be protected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners' claim of adverse possession against the State to be untenable and not entitled to equitable relief. It also held that the construction of a road up to 30 meters width was in accordance with the Bhopal Development Plan-2005. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Adverse possession claim, deviation from development plan for Smart City project, construction of road width
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adverse possession against the State is not sustainable in law and that the construction of a road up to 30 meters width was in accordance with the development plan. It also emphasized that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply when the State is the owner of the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
Hemant Gupta, CJ.
The petitioners, except the petitioner No.32, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the assertion that they are in adverse possession of the land in question and the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have carried out a massive demolition drive of the houses and shops of the petitioners and many others situate in the area of Krishna Nagar, Banganga Nagar, Tantya Tope Nagar (T.T. Nagar) and Ahata of Rustom Khan. The assertion is that the residents are in possession since many years and have perfected their title by virtue of long and uninterrupted possession. Their relevant assertions as contained in the writ petition are as follows :-
“5.15 THAT, the Respondent No.2, 3 and 4 carried out a massive demolition drive of houses and shops of Petitioners and many others situated in the areas of Krishna Nagar, Bainganga Nagar, TTI, and Ahata Rustom Khan. This action of the Respondent is arbitrary and illegal. The residents here in possessions since last so many years and had perfected their title by virtue of their long and uninterrupted possession. A copy of the Election Voter List of the year 1982 and 1994 showing the voters living in the areas of Rustam Khan ka Aahata and TTI areas are cumulatively filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/11.
*** *** ***
5.41 THAT, it is also important to mention here that the Petitioners herein and other similarly situated persons have been living in the said land occupied by then since long time and hence they cannot be disposed in the way intended by the Respondents. The Respondent State cannot commence any work on the land in question without acquiring the same. Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the emergency provision as provided under Section 17 of the old Land Acquisition Act has been given a go by and hence no work can be carried out unless the land is acquired by the Respondents.
*** *** ***
5.43 THAT, the Petitioners have been living on the land in question since more than 30-40 years and have perfected their title against their true owners and hence they cannot be now dispossessed without acquiring the land in question. To demonstrate that the Petitioners have been living in the land in question since long time the Petitioners are filing herewith Election Voter List of the area where the land in question is situated. The said voter list for the year 1982 and 1994 are already filed as Annexure P/11. The residents of the land in question have been regularly paying Property Tax to the Respondent No.4 and also had the Property ID generated in the records of the Respondent No.4. The Petitioners have obtained a list of such persons paying Property tax on the land in question. A copy of such list is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/25. The Respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation has ceased the aforesaid Property ID and hence the Petitioners and other similarly situated persons have been deprived from paying their Property Tax now.
*** *** ***
6.6 BECAUSE, the Petitioners have perfected their title due to long uninterrupted and peaceful possession of more than 40 years and the same is also hostile against the true owner hence the Petitioners cannot be just thrown out of their land. Though the Respondents have demolished the structures of the Petitioners but their possession on land is still intact and the same deserves to be protected.”
2. The stand of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 has launched a Smart City Mission project under which 100 cities were shortlisted to be developed as “Smart Cities”. Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal was selected for Area Based Development (ABD), which includes redevelopment of 333 Acres of Government land at Shivaji Nagar situated between New Market and M.P. Nagar, Bhopal.
3. The petitioner No.32 has been impleaded in a representative capacity to represent the interest of other similarly situated persons being elected representative of local Municipal Corpor
K. Ramadas Shenoy vs. The Chief Officers Town Municipal Council Udipi and others
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others
Rajendra Shankar Shukla and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and others
Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another
State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (dead) Through His LRs.
Gadde Venkateshwara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others
Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa and others
Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander & Others
P. Lakshmi Reddy vs L. Lakshmi Reddy
State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and others
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Kararnchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.