Alleged Oral Consent Not Sufficient For Acquiring Land To Construct Road, Proper Proceedings Needed: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that alleged oral consent of the land holder is not enough to construct a road over his land. For such construction, the land must be acquired through proper procedure prescribed in law.Holding that consent for land use for public passage will not amount to adverse possession of the State, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant...
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that alleged oral consent of the land holder is not enough to construct a road over his land. For such construction, the land must be acquired through proper procedure prescribed in law.
Holding that consent for land use for public passage will not amount to adverse possession of the State, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“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. [reliance is placed to paragraph 12.11 of Vidya Devi (supra)].”
Certain portion of Petitioners' land was used by the Gram Panchayat-Andka to construct a 4 meter-wide public way. Petitioners were given assurance that requests have been placed before higher authorities for compensation. After the demarcation, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh passed an order stating that possession of the land could not be given to the petitioners as the construction was done in public interest.
Despite representations, no action was taken for compensating the petitioners, accordingly, writ petition was filed before the High Court.
The Court observed that while the land was being used as passage by public, it was recorded in the name of the petitioners. It was also observed that though the land was being used by public, it had not been acquired under any law for the purpose of construction of road.
“In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State cannot deprive a citizen on his property without sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra) and Vidya Devi (supra).”
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed that the land can only be used by the authorities after proper acquisition. The respondent authorities were directed to calculate and pay the compensation payable to the petitioners.
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore and another Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and 4 others [WRIT - C No. - 8222 of 2024]