Mere Oral Consent For Use Of Land As Road Not Valid Ground For Take Over In Absence Of Legal Sanction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that alleged oral consent for the use of the land as a road cannot be a valid ground to take over his land, in the absence of any legal sanction.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking direction to the State to pay promptly a due compensation to the Petitioners for the land in accordance to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held, "The contention of the State that the petitioners had orally consented for the use of the land as a road cannot be a valid ground to take over his land, in the absence of any legal sanction in divesting the petitioners from their property."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Madan Gopal Tripathi while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioners were the owners and cultivators of the land in question which was in their possession since the time of their ancestors. Out of the total area of the said plot, the Gram Panchayat constructed a 4 meter-wide public way over an area measuring approximately 0.109 hectares, without adopting due process of land acquisition provided under the law.

During the construction of the said Khadanja, the Village Head and the concerned officials of the Gram Panchayat assured the Petitioners that correspondence had been made with higher authorities of the Panchayat Raj Department and the compensation for the acquired land would be paid to them upon release of funds.

To ascertain the actual area of land utilized for road construction, demarcation proceedings were conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the report confirmed that although a road was already recorded on the south side of the plot in question new construction had been carried out by the Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat-Andka on the east, north, and west sides not recorded as a road in revenue records.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh accepted the demarcation report and, while noting that the construction was done in public interest, had held that the possession of the land could not be delivered to the petitioners.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the construction of the public way (khadanja) was carried out without acquisition and without payment of compensation, which is contrary to law.

He further submitted that the concerned Respondents flagrantly violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners and they were not given any chance to get the construction of public way stopped as there was political pressure due to which the petitioners’ prayer to the authorities concerned were never heeded.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2020), D.B. Basnett v. Collector EastDistrict, Gangtok Sikkim and another; (2020), Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P.; (2022), Kukreja Construction Co. v. State of Maharashtra; (2024), Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka; (2025)

On the other hand, Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the Petition and submitted that the khadanja was constructed years ago on the same existing kacha road in public interest and at that time, no objection was lodged by the Petitioners. They also submitted that since the land was used as a passage for the last 30-40 years, it would be tantamount to adverse possession.

Reasoning By Court

The Court didn't find any justification for the respondents to occupy or utilize the portion of the land in question without following or adopting the procedures prescribed under the law

"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)]", the Court stated.

It was of the view that no person can be deprived of his property without due procedure of law

"...It is well settled in catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the right to property is not only a constitutional or a statutory right but also a Human Right and the property of a citizen can only be acquired for public purpose, following the due procedure and only on payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with law", the Court held.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Kaushal Kishore and another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and 4 others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Madan Gopal Tripathi, Advocate Shivam Kumar Mishra

Respondent- C.S.C., Advocate Mohan Singh

Click here to read/ download Order