State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case

High Court directs State to cease road construction on private land, upholds constitutional property rights. In a significant judgment on May 22, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of petitioner Bhaskardutt Dwivedi, directing the state authorities to cease construction activities on his private land. The court underscored the inviolability of constitutional rights under Article 300-A and highlighted the state's failure to adhere to due legal processes.

Bhaskardutt Dwivedi, a 67-year-old retired government employee residing in Kulbaheriya village, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dwivedi claimed that the state was illegally constructing a road on his private land without acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act, violating his constitutional and human rights. The construction was part of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and despite multiple representations to the authorities, no action was taken to address his grievances.

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, presiding over the case, acknowledged that the state had admitted to constructing a road on Dwivedi's land. Despite this admission, the state claimed that the road had existed for 40-50 years and was merely being rebuilt. The court dismissed this justification, noting the absence of legal acquisition processes.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, affirming that the state cannot claim adverse possession against a private individual. Justice Ahluwalia remarked, "The state, being a welfare 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 citizens"​​.

The judgment emphasized the constitutional guarantee of the right to property under Article 300-A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. The court stated, "To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution"​​.

Directives to State Authorities:

The court issued several directives:

Immediate cessation of road construction on Dwivedi's land.

Removal of any constructed portions of the road from the petitioner's property.

Payment of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per day to the petitioner until compliance is achieved, recoverable from the salary of the responsible official, Executive Engineer Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi​​.

Justice Ahluwalia criticized the actions of the state authorities, stating, "It is really unfortunate that the civil servants are not realizing the importance of the office of Advocate General, which is a constitutional authority, and they are out and out to carry out their illegal activity as per their own whims and wishes"​​.

This landmark judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in protecting citizens' constitutional rights against state overreach. The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision not only provides immediate relief to Bhaskardutt Dwivedi but also sets a significant precedent for future cases involving unauthorized state encroachment on private property. The ruling underscores the importance of due process and the rule of law in upholding property rights in India.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2024