Safiya Malik

The High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar has held that oral consent from a landholder is insufficient to permit road construction over private agricultural land. The dispute involved a petitioner seeking compensation after local authorities and a village body built a public pathway over a portion of recorded private land without statutory acquisition. The Court decided that for any permanent road construction, the land must be acquired by the procedure prescribed in law, with compensation paid. It directed authorities to calculate and disburse compensation within 12 weeks if the road is to continue on the petitioner’s land.

The petitioners are recorded owners and cultivators of Plot No. 328, measuring 1.025 hectares in village Andka, District Barabanki. They allege that the Gram Panchayat-Andka constructed a 4-metre-wide public way (khadanja) over approximately 0.109 hectares of this plot, on its east, north and west sides, without following the land acquisition process. A demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Siddhaur on 18.08.2023, confirming new road construction over 0.109 hectares not recorded as road in the revenue records. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh, by order dated 16.04.2024, accepted the report and stated that possession of this land could not be delivered back to the petitioners.

Also Read: Appellate Court Can Grant Interim Relief Even After Suit Dismissal By Trial Court: Supreme Court Remits Status Quo Plea On Suit Property To District Court For Fresh Consideration

The petitioners claim they were assured by the Village Head and Panchayat officials that compensation would be paid after funds were sanctioned. They sent grievance representations by registered post on 20.07.2024 and a reminder on 07.08.2024, seeking compensation. They then filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, asserting violation of their property rights, including under Article 300A, and relying on several Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The State and Gram Panchayat contend, on the basis of an inquiry report dated 07.10.2024, that a kachcha road existed on the land for 30–40 years, that the petitioners raised no objection earlier, that the khadanja merely formalized this passage, and that the claim is delayed and barred by principles including adverse possession and laches, supported by precedent.

The Court recorded that the land “is recorded in the name of the petitioners and the said land was being used by the general public merely as a passage.” It noted that “the said land had never been acquired for road constructions.” The Bench observed that the respondents had “constructed a public way (Khadanja) over the portion of petitioners’ land without following any due process of law and also without payment of any compensation.” “We do not found 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.”

The Court stated that the contention of oral consent was untenable, holding that “the petitioners had orally consented for the use of the land as a road cannot be a valid ground… in the absence of any legal sanction in divesting the petitioners from their property.” It further observed that the plea of adverse possession was impermissible, recording that “The State being a welfare State cannot be permitted to take a plea of adverse possession… to grab the property of its own citizen.”

The Bench discussed the settled legal position on deprivation of property, recording that “in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State cannot deprive a citizen on his property without sanction of law.” It relied on the principles laid down in earlier decisions concerning the right to property as a constitutional and human right. The Court stated that “no person can be deprived of his property without due procedure of law” and noted that property may only be acquired for public purpose “on payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with law.”

The Court found that the State had neither initiated acquisition proceedings nor offered compensation despite using private land for public construction. It recorded that demarcation confirmed new construction beyond the existing recorded road and that the authorities’ reliance on long-term use did not establish any lawful title. The Court reiterated that adverse possession is not available to the State and that mere passage use does not confer authority to permanently construct or occupy private land.

Upon reviewing the material, the Bench held that continued use of the land must be regularised in accordance with law, and the petitioners were entitled to compensation before the State could retain or use the constructed road.

Also Read: Criminal Antecedents Of Advocates Pose Threat To Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court Invokes Article 227, Directs DGP To Furnish Statewide Data On Cases Against Lawyers

The Court allowed the petition. It directed that if the respondents intend to use the road constructed on the petitioners’ land, “then the same can only be used after following the due process and after paying the suitable compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law.” The authorities were directed “to calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and make payment within a period of twelve weeks from date.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Madan Gopal Tripathi, Advocate; Shivam Kumar Mishra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mohan Singh, Advocate; Akhilesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel

Case Title: Kaushal Kishore and Another v. State of U.P. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:77608-DB
Case Number: Writ-C No. 8222 of 2024
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf , Justice Prashant Kumar