State Cannot Take Defence Of Adverse Possession Against An Individual: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a private land encroachment case, said that the State cannot take the defence of adverse possession against an individual.

The Court questioned the State on promoting violation of constitutional rights of citizens only on ground that their officers have no legal knowledge.

The Jabalpur Bench asked thus in a petition seeking expeditious steps in deciding the representation within a stipulated period.

A Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, "... it is clear that the State cannot take the defence of adverse possession against an individual. Surprisingly, the Advocate General Office is well aware of the law laid down by Supreme Court and in spite of clear communication by the A.G. Office to the Officers about the law as well as the question formulated by this Court and the interim order granted by this Court, Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa is adamant to say that since the road is in existence for last 40-50 years, therefore, they are right in constructing a new road by raising the height of the road. This attitude is the height of the arbitrariness and mala fide action on the part of Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa."

“If the State is of the view that their officers have no legal knowledge, then it is a high time for the State to consider as to whether such officers are to be retained in the service or not? How the State can promote the violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the country only on the ground that their officers have no legal knowledge?”, it also remarked. 

Advocate Chandrahas Dubey appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Swati Aseem George and Government Advocate Mohan Sausarkar appeared on behalf of the respondents. Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa was present in person on his own.

In this case, the petitioner contended that the respondents were constructing a road on a part of his private land and the said act was contrary to the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution as well as human right. He stated that the State cannot encroach upon the land belonging to the private individual without acquiring the same under Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the said road was in existence for the last 40-50 years and hence, new road was constructed of which the filling was also done.

The High Court after hearing the arguments of parties noted, “… it is clear that the attitude of Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa is not indicative of lack of knowledge but it is indicative of the hostile attitude towards the law citizens of the state as well as the authority of the Court.”

The Court said that the action of the respondents in constructing a road on the private land of the petitioner is held to be unconstitutional, violative of constitutional right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 300-A of Constitution as well as violative of his Human Rights.

“… the respondents are directed to immediately remove the road situated on the private land of the petitioner and submit the report latest by tomorrow before the Registrar General of this Court. … Since, the respondents have illegally encroached upon the land belonging to the petitioner and are raising construction of a road without acquiring the same and in spite of the notices issued on 20.05.2024 and in spite of interim order dated 21.05.2024 have not stopped the use of land as a road, therefore, the respondents are directed to pay a mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per day to the petitioner till the road is actually dismantled from the land belonging to the petitioner, or the land is acquired”, it further directed.

The Court also ordered that since the illegal activity of not complying the interim order is of Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa, therefore, there is no need to put an additional pressure on the public exchequer and, hence, the mesne profits shall be recovered from the salary of the said Executive Engineer.

“The Principal Secretary, PWD, State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to submit his affidavit to the Registry of this Court clarifying that how much mesne profit has been paid to the petitioner and whether it has been deducted from the salary of Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa or not and if the mesne profit is not paid or said amount is not recovered from the salary of Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa, then the Principal Secretary, PWD, State of Madhya Pradesh shall also be under obligation to explain that why no such action has been taken”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on Executive Engineer, and directed the office to register a separate case against him for non-compliance of interim order.

Cause Title- Bhaskardutt Dwivedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment