State Cannot Usurp Citizens’ Property: Gauhati High Court Directs CRPF To Hand Over Vacant Possession Of Land
The High Court found that no acquisition record, award, Gazette notification or proof of compensation had been produced despite repeated opportunities.
The Gauhati High Court, while directing the CRPF authorities to vacate and hand over vacant possession of a petitioner’s land, reiterated that the State cannot usurp citizens’ property or take the plea of adverse possession to grab land belonging to its own citizens.
The Court was hearing a writ petition by landowners alleging that the Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati had been in illegal and unauthorised occupation of their land since 1975 for a water pump house, without acquisition or payment of compensation. They sought restoration of possession and compensation for use of the land, or acquisition in accordance with law.
A Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah, while referring to Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), observed that “the Constitutional rights under Article 300A of the Constitution is a human right and such power to take over the lands by the State has to be in consonance with the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution. In the instant case, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have taken the plea that they have been in occupation of the lands from 1975 onwards and the Petitioners have only initiated the proceedings sometime in the year 2005. In the case of Vidya Devi (supra), there was a delay of 42 years. Then also the Supreme Court held that the State cannot be permitted to usurp the rights of its citizens. It was also mentioned that the State cannot also be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession thereby to grab the property of its own citizens.”
The Bench, accordingly, directed that “the vacant possession of the land be handed over by the DIG, GC, CRPF or his delegatee within the period as directed”.
Advocate A. Das appeared for the petitioners. A. Gayan, CGC, appeared for the Union of India and CRPF authorities; G. Hazarika, Standing Counsel, appeared for the State; and J. Handique, Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appeared for the revenue authorities.
Background
The dispute concerned land at village Sarutari under Mouza Sonapur in Kamrup (M), Assam, which the petitioners claimed to have inherited and over which patta and revenue records stood in their favour.
According to the petitioners, the Group Centre, CRPF had been occupying about 5 Bighas of their land since 1975 for a water pump house without acquisition, compensation or lawful authority. They sought either restoration of possession with compensation for use of the land, or lawful acquisition on payment of compensation.
The CRPF authorities claimed that a larger parcel had been handed over after acquisition for setting up the Group Centre, but admitted that the acquisition order and patta were not available in their records. The revenue authorities also stated that no acquisition documents could be traced.
During the proceedings, the Court gave the CRPF authorities opportunities to decide whether they wanted to retain the land by acquiring it or surrender possession. After the authorities stated that they were not inclined to acquire the land, the Court proceeded to decide the writ petition finally.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the CRPF authorities failed to produce any material showing that the land had ever been lawfully acquired.
The Court observed, “Both types of acquisition require Gazette Notification for the purpose of initiating acquisition proceedings. Both the Acts also require Awards to be passed. There is also the requirement of payment of compensation. The Gazette Notification, Payment of compensation as well as Awards are records which are always maintained.”
It further held, “Nothing has been placed on record to show that any acquisition was carried out in the land belonging to the Petitioners.”
Rejecting reliance on the possession document, the Court found it vague and insufficient to establish lawful acquisition.
The Court remarked, “This document does not show in any manner as regards what was the number of the Government Dags or the numbers of the patta and corresponding Dags wherein possession was granted to the Respondent No.2. The said document is completely vague.”
The Court also rejected the argument that a revenue remark showed the land to be government land, holding that the submission was based on a wrong reading of revenue entries.
The Court noted that several opportunities were given to the Union and CRPF authorities to acquire the land, but they ultimately stated that they were not inclined to do so.
The Court held, “Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 cannot be permitted to further continue with their illegal occupation over the land more particularly in Dag No.5 and Dag No.49 of Patta No.31 situated at village Sarutari under Mouza Sonapur in the District of Kamrup (M) Assam.”
The Court also held that adequate compensation had to be paid for the period of illegal occupation.
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the Union and CRPF authorities had no right to remain in possession of the land measuring 5 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas.
The CRPF was directed to vacate the land within 60 days and hand over vacant possession through the DIG, GC, CRPF or his delegatee. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), was directed to assess compensation under Section 11(4) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 from April 11, 2015 till the date of handing over possession, with payment to be made within six months of assessment.
Cause Title: Smt. Crisceda Ruth Rapoza and 2 Ors. v. The Union of India and 4 Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:10474)