Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Unauthorized Construction on Private Land Violates Constitutional Rights : Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Immediate Halt

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ordered the immediate cessation of road construction on private land without following due legal process. The judgment, delivered by Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, underscores the inviolability of property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of their property without legal sanction and adequate compensation.

Background: The petitioner, Bhaskardutt Dwivedi, approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the construction of a road on his private land by the Public Works Department (PWD) without following due legal procedures for land acquisition or providing compensation. Dwivedi’s writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cited violations of property rights and human rights, contending that the State’s actions were unconstitutional.

Dwivedi alleged that the State had begun constructing a road on his private land under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna without acquiring the land through legal means or compensating him. The petitioner sought immediate cessation of the construction and adequate compensation for the unauthorized use of his land.

State’s Violation of Property Rights: Justice Ahluwalia highlighted the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 300-A, noting, “The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” The court referred to multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which affirmed that forcible dispossession without legal process is unconstitutional.

Invalidity of Adverse Possession Claim: The court rejected the State’s defense of adverse possession, citing the Supreme Court’s clear stance that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens. “In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law,” the judgment quoted from Vidya Devi’s case.

Non-Compliance with Interim Orders: Justice Ahluwalia expressed strong disapproval of the Executive Engineer’s non-compliance with interim orders to halt construction. “The admitted non-compliance indicates a hostile attitude towards legal processes and citizens’ rights,” he remarked, directing that mesne profits for the unauthorized use of land be recovered from the responsible officer’s salary.

Constitutional and Human Rights Violations: The judgment extensively discussed the State’s obligations under constitutional and human rights frameworks, emphasizing that property cannot be taken without due process and fair compensation. 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.”

Accountability and Compensation: Justice Ahluwalia ordered the immediate removal of the road from Dwivedi’s land and directed the State to compensate him for unauthorized use. Furthermore, he imposed mesne profits of Rs. 15,000 per day for the duration of the unauthorized use, to be deducted from the salary of the responsible officer, Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division.

“The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law,” stated Justice Ahluwalia, emphasizing the constitutional protections afforded to property owners.

In addressing the Executive Engineer’s non-compliance, the court remarked, “The hostile attitude towards the law and citizens of the state, as well as the authority of the Court, is indicative of an alarming disregard for constitutional mandates.”

This judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is a significant affirmation of property rights and the rule of law. By holding the State accountable and ensuring compensation for unauthorized land use, the court has reinforced the legal framework protecting citizens’ property rights. The decision also underscores the judiciary’s role in curbing arbitrary state actions and upholding constitutional guarantees.

Date of Decision: 22nd May 2024

Bhaskardutt Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Similar News