Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Pradyumna Mukund Kokil vs State Of Maharashtra .

Supreme Court22 April 2015Anil R. Dave · V. Gopala Gowda · C. Nagappan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A state authority or government body cannot avail itself of a plea of adverse possession against a citizen's land, even where the citizen had permitted the government authority to use the land, as it would be improper for the authority to take undue advantage of such permission at the time of compensation when the land is later acquired.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3874 OF 2015 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 35634 OF 2013]

PRADYUMNA MUKUND KOKIL Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some

length.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant is

the owner of the land admeasuring 37 acres of Survey No. 8/1,

Village – Deolali, Taluka – Nasik, District Nasik, Maharashtra.

4. By virtue of the impugned order, the Respondent-State has been

directed to acquire the said land as Respondent No. 3 – Municipality

has constructed a road on the said land.

5. The only objection which the learned counsel for the appellant

has raised is about the observation made in paragraph 27(b) of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

impugned Judgment with regard to adverse possession of the Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2015.05.13 17:19:28 IST Reason:

Municipality. According to Respondent No. 3–Municipal Corporation,

the Corporation was in possession of the land belonging to the 2

appellant.

6. The appellant claims to be the owner of the land in question

and even as per the Revenue Records, the appellant appears to be the

owner.

7. In our opinion, it was not fair on the part of the High Court

to permit Respondent No. 3 – Municipality to raise a plea with

regard to adverse possession. It would not be proper on the part of

the Government body or any state authority to take possession of

somebody's land without following due process of law and even if a

citizen has permitted his land being used by a government authority,

the authority should not take undue advantage thereof at the time of

giving compensation when the said land is acquired.

8. In the circumstances, we delete paragraph 27(b) of the impugned

Judgment whereby Respondent No. 3 – Municipal Corporation has been

permitted to take plea with regard to adverse possession.

9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

State of Maharashtra that during the pendency of the present appeal,

necessary formalities for acquiring the land in question has not

been initiated. It is hoped that the respondent-State shall

initiate the proceedings within four months from today.

10. In view of the above modification in the impugned Judgment, the

appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no

order as to costs.

3

11. It is made clear that the rest of the impugned Judgment shall

remain as it is.

.......................J. [ ANIL R. DAVE ]

.......................J. [ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]

.......................J. [ C. NAGAPPAN ]

New Delhi;

April 22, 2015.

4

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 35634/2013

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/06/2013 in WPC No. 11709/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)

PRADYUMNA MUKUND KOKIL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with application for permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal)

Date : 22/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Adv.

Mr. Satyajit S., Adv.

Mr. P. J. Ahuja, Adv.

Mr. Ajit Wagh, Adv.

Mr. Aditya G., Adv.

For Mrs V. D. Khanna, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.

Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free