Pradyumna Mukund Kokil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Background
The appellant owned about 37 acres of land in Nasik district, Maharashtra, on which a municipal corporation had built a road. The state government was directed, by the High Court's impugned judgment, to formally acquire the land, but that judgment also included an observation (in paragraph 27(b)) allowing the municipal corporation to separately raise a plea of adverse possession over the land. The landowner's only grievance before the Supreme Court was against this adverse-possession observation, which could undermine his right to fair compensation on acquisition.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant that it was unfair for the High Court to have permitted the municipality to raise an adverse possession claim, holding that a government body should not take advantage of a citizen's land, even land the citizen allowed to be used, to avoid paying proper compensation once that land is formally acquired. The Court accordingly deleted paragraph 27(b) of the High Court's judgment, while leaving the rest of that judgment (including the direction to acquire the land) intact. It also noted the State's submission that acquisition formalities had not yet begun and directed that they be initiated within four months.
Lesson Learnt
Even after permitting a government body to use one's land, a private landowner retains full ownership rights, and authorities cannot later use an adverse possession claim as a backdoor to avoid paying fair compensation when that land is formally acquired.