In one of its recent judgement, the Supreme Court had granted relief to an 80-year-old illiterate widow, whose land Himachal Pradesh Government had forcibly acquired in the year1967-68 without following due process of law for construction of the road.

The Court for a matter of fact held that the State cannot invoke the Doctrine of Adverse Possession to perfect title over land grabbed from private citizens.

It held that that dispossession of a person from his private property forcibly is violative of Human Rights and Constitutional Right under Article 300A.

CASE BACKGROUND

In the year 1967-68, the Government forcibly snatched the appellant's land and she didn't take any action since she wasn't aware of the legal remedies due to her illiteracy. 

In 2004, some other persons, whose lands had also been similarly taken by the State, approached the High Court and after three years, the HC directed the State to acquire their lands under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and then accordingly provided compensation.

When the appellant herein get to  know about the order so delivered, she approached the High Court in 2010 via writ petition and claimed for compensation for the land in accordance with the process under Land Acquisition Act,1894.

When the case came up for hearing, the State in its submission opposed the petition stating that it had perfected the title of land by 42 years of 'adverse possession'.

In a further submission, the State claimed that the road had been built over the land and that the appellant should seek compensation under a Civil suit.

Base on the submissions made, the High Court in 2013, dismissed the writ petition and stated that it involved disputed questions of fact. It though granted liberty to the appellant to file a Civil Suit.

Aggrieved with the judgement delivered, the appellant has then approached the Supreme Court.

APEX COURT ANALYSIS

The Top Court after hearing the submissions and analyzing the case history referred to Article 300A of the Constitution and said :

"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. 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 State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution."

The Supreme Court didn't shy away to express surprise at the plea of 'adverse possession' forwarded by the State. It clearly remarked that a welfare state cannot use the doctrine of 'adverse possession' to grab the property of a citizen.

"We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to "adverse" possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. 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 citizens, as has been done in the present case".

The Court also rejected the argument of delay and deadlock raised by the State.

Rejecting the argument that there was 'oral consent' for the acquisition, it held:

"In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it"

The Court noted that the illiterate widow was divested of her property for nearly half a century by the State without any legal sanction. So, the Court found it fit to invoke the extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution.

It said:

"We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the Appellant."

The Apex Court regarded the case as a "deemed acquisition", and thus directed the State to pay the same amount of compensation as was paid in a reference case of an adjacent plot.

In the end, the Top Court took note of the fact that the claimant in that reference case had filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation in High Court and thus granted liberty to the present appellant also to file an appeal within 8 weeks.

Adding to this, the State was also directed to pay legal costs and expenses amounting to ₹1,00,0000/­ to the present appellant.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi on 08-01-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :