Supreme Court Rejects State's Adverse Possession Claim, Upholds Human Right to Property

In the case of Vidya Devi vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2020), the Supreme Court ruled in favour of an 80-year-old illiterate widow whose land was forcibly taken by the State in 1967 for road construction without due process or compensation.

Background: The appellant, Vidya Devi, who is senior citizen and a widow hailing from a rural background, was the owner of approximately 3.34 hectares of land in Tika Jalari Bhaddirain, Mauja Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, Dist. Hamipur, Himachal Pradesh.

In 1967-68, the Respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh took over her land for the construction of the Nadaun – Sujanpur Road, a major District Road, without initiating any land acquisition proceedings or following due process of law. The construction of the road was completed by 1975. Being unaware of her legal rights, the appellant did not file any proceedings for compensation at that time.

The appellant filed a writ in the Himachal Pradesh High Court as the High Court, in a similar matter, directed the state for intitiating the land acquisition process. However, in the appellant's case the State admitted to using the appellant's land for the road construction in 1967-68. However, the State contended that it had been in continuous possession of the property for over 42 years, and thus its title had converted into "adverse possession". The State also argued that the appellant's petition was barred by laches, given the road's construction in 1967-68 and metalling by 1975, and claimed the appellant or her predecessors had verbally consented to the takeover.

When the matter reached the High Court, in 2013, it dismissed the writ petition, holding that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact regarding the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings, and granted the appellant liberty to file a civil suit. A subsequent review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed in 2014. Aggrieved by these High Court orders, the appellant filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court observed that "There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice".

By observing the "Right to Property as a Human and Constitutional Right", the Supreme Court highlighted that when the appellant's land was forcibly expropriated in 1967, the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, ensuring no deprivation without due process and just compensation.

Even after the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, removed it from Part III, the right to property continued to be a "human right" in a welfare State and a "Constitutional right" under Article 300A.

The Apex Court firmly stated that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law, and the State cannot dispossess a citizen except in accordance with legally established procedure. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly stated in Article 300A, can be inferred. Forcibly dispossessing a person without due process is violative of both a human right and the constitutional right under Article 300A.

Expressing its surprise on the "State's Plea of Adverse Possession" the Apex Court held that a welfare State "cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property".

Supreme Court unequivocally held that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over land by invoking adverse possession to "grab the property of its own citizens". The Court found the State's contention of "oral consent" by the appellant or her predecessors to be "completely baseless", and with a "complete lack of authority and legal sanction".

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court, thereby granting relief to Vidya Devi. The Apex Court condemned the State's conduct of forcibly dispossessing a citizen of their property without due process and compensation, and critically examined the State's pleas of adverse possession and delay/laches, reinforcing the right to property as a human and constitutional right, and directing compensation based on deemed acquisition.

The the Supreme Court exercised its "extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution" to direct compensation, and directed the State to pay compensation to the appellant within eight weeks, treating it as a "case of deemed acquisition" and further directed the State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant.

Coram: Justice Indu Malhotra & Justice Ajay Rastogi.