Court rules against State's adverse possession claim, mandates compensation for private land used for public purposes.
In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favor of private landowners, emphasizing the inviolability of property rights against State encroachment. The case, Ranbir Singh v. Haryana State, centered on the unauthorized use of privately owned land by the State of Haryana for the construction and cementing of the Banmandori Distributary.
Presided over by Justice Ramesh Kumari, the court overturned the previous rulings of the lower courts which had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The appellants, led by Ranbir Singh, argued that the State had illegally taken possession of 7 kanals of their land without acquisition or compensation, transforming it into a cemented distributary.
The State defended its actions by claiming adverse possession, asserting that the distributary had been in place since 1960 with the knowledge and without objection from the landowners. The trial and first appellate courts had previously accepted this defense, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as time-barred and recognizing the State's ownership through adverse possession.
However, the High Court's judgment emphasized that the State, as a welfare entity, cannot claim adverse possession to deprive citizens of their property without due process and compensation, as enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Justice Kumari underscored the principle that the right to property is a constitutional and human right, which cannot be overridden by the doctrine of adverse possession.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court of India, the judgment highlighted that the State must treat such situations as "deemed acquisition" and compensate the rightful owners fairly. The court noted that the State's actions violated the plaintiffs' property rights and ordered the State to compensate the landowners at fair market value, including statutory benefits like solatium and interest, within three months.
This ruling reinforces the legal protection of private property against unauthorized State use, reiterating that any deprivation of property must follow due legal procedures and ensure adequate compensation. The judgment is a significant affirmation of citizens' property rights against arbitrary State actions.
Bottom line:-
The State cannot take possession of private land for public use, such as constructing a distributary, without following due process of law, including acquisition and payment of compensation to the rightful owners.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Article 65, Article 300-A of the Constitution
Ranbir Singh v. Haryana State, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2908654
