SAMRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by Shri Mohan Sausarkar that the authorities have already sent a proposal for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 7 is illegally constructing road over petitioners' land bearing Khasra No. 266 ad-measuring 0.1900 hectare (part of) and Khasra No.273 ad-measuring 0.56 hectare (part of) situated at village Barti, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna (MP). It is the specific case of the petitioners that the said construction is being raised without acquiring the land belonging to the petitioners. Even according to the counsel for the State, proposal has been sent for acquisition of the land, on which, road is being constructed.

(2.) Only dispute which is being raised by Shri Mohan Sausarkar is that road was already in existence for last 40 years but now it is being repaired. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the State. Without adjudicating the correctness of the statement made by counsel for the State that the road is in existence for last 40 years, the only question which is required to be answered by the State is as to whether the State can claim adverse possession against residents of the State or not. Furthermore, right to hold the property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others, decided on 16/5/2024 in Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024 has laid down seven principles which reads as under :-