State Cannot Invoke 'Adverse Possession' to Grab Citizen's Property; Must Pay Compensation for Land Used for Road: Allahabad High Court

State Cannot Use 'Adverse Possession' to Justify Taking Citizen's Land, Must Pay Compensation: Allahabad High Court

Lucknow, U.P. – In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of private property rights, the Allahabad High Court has held that the State, as a welfare entity, cannot invoke the doctrine of "adverse possession" to legitimize its occupation of a citizen's land. A division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay compensation within twelve weeks to two farmers whose land was used to build a public road without any legal acquisition process.

The court declared that depriving a person of their property without due process of law is a violation of their constitutional and human rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Case Background: A Road Built on Private Land

The writ petition was filed by Kaushal Kishore and another farmer, who are the recorded owners of a 1.025-hectare plot in Barabanki district. They alleged that the local Gram Panchayat had constructed a 4-meter wide public road (khadanja) over a 0.109-hectare portion of their land without their consent and without initiating any land acquisition proceedings.

The petitioners stated that while they were initially assured of compensation by village officials, no payment was ever made. A subsequent demarcation report by the Revenue Inspector, accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, confirmed that the road was indeed constructed on the petitioners' private land. Despite this, authorities failed to act on their repeated requests for compensation, prompting them to approach the High Court.

Arguments in Court

Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners' counsel argued that the State's action was a flagrant violation of the law. They contended that their land was taken without acquisition and compensation, contrary to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 . Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh , they emphasized that the right to property is a constitutional and human right, and the State cannot forcibly dispossess a citizen without following the due process of law.

State's Defense: Conversely, the State and the Gram Panchayat argued that an unpaved (kacha) road had existed on the land for 30-40 years, which they had merely paved for public benefit. They claimed the petitioners never objected to its prior use and, in a controversial move, argued that the State's long-standing use of the land amounted to "adverse possession." They cited a 2011 Supreme Court case, Syed Maqbool Ali V. State of U.P. , to argue against entertaining such belated claims for compensation.

Court's Reasoning: A Rebuke to the State

The High Court decisively rejected the State's arguments, expressing its disapproval of the "adverse possession" plea. The bench found no justification for the authorities to occupy and utilize private land without following the prescribed legal procedures.

The court highlighted several key legal principles:

* Rejection of Oral Consent: The court dismissed the idea of "oral consent" as an invalid ground for the State to take over private property.

* Adverse Possession Plea Impermissible: The bench was particularly critical of the State's attempt to claim title through adverse possession. Quoting the Vidya Devi judgment, the court stated:

> "We are surprised by the plea taken by the State that since the land was used as a passage for the last 30-40 years, it would tantamount to adverse possession. The State being a welfare State cannot be permitted to take a plea of adverse possession. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizen."

• Right to Property as a Human Right: The court reiterated the settled legal position that the right to property under Article 300A is not merely a constitutional right but also a fundamental human right. It affirmed that the State cannot deprive a citizen of their property without the sanction of law and payment of reasonable compensation.

Final Verdict and Directions

Allowing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court issued a clear directive. It ruled that if the State wishes to continue using the road constructed on the petitioners' land, it must do so only after following the due process of law and paying suitable compensation.

The court ordered the authorities to calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and ensure its payment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the judgment.