State cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to perfect title over acquired land from private citizens without following due process of law

The Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh& Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 60-61 of 2020) decided on 08.01.2020 held that forcible dispossession of a person from his private property is violative of human right and constitutional right under Article 300A.

Facts :
The appellant being illiterate widow of 80 years, whose land was acquired by the State in the year 1967-68 without taking recourse of acquisition proceeding or following due process of law for construction of road.
In the year 2004, some similarly situated persons whose lands had also been taken over by the State for the same public purpose, filed CWP No.1192 of 2004 claiming compensation before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In 2007, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the State to acquire the lands of the Petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and provide compensation accordingly.
After knowing about this order, the appellant approached the HC in 2010 by filing a writ petition claiming compensation for the land in accordance with the process under Land Acquisition Act. The State opposed the petition stating that it had perfected title by 42 years of ‘adverse possession’. It further submitted that the road had been built over the land and that the appellant should invoke the remedy of a civil suit.
In 2013, the High Court after dismissing the writ petition of the appellant held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings but liberty was granted to file civil suit.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Hon’ble Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issue
Whether continuous possession of the land for over 42 years by the Government would tantamount to “adverse” possession?

Ratio:
The Court referring to Article 300A of the Constitution said no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution.

The court further said “We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the 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 citizens, as has been done in the present case”.
The Court directed the State to pay compensation to the Appellant in a same manner as paid in the case of CWP No.1192 of 2004