Lack Of Legal Knowledge No Defence For Govt Officials Violating Citizens' Constitutional Rights: MP High Court Slams Encroachment Of Private Land

Madhya Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the government officials for citing the lack of legal knowledge as an excuse to trample on the constitutional rights of its citizens.

The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia imposed Rs 25,000/- cost on the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, for flouting the court's erstwhile instruction to stop the use of private land as a government road. The court also expressed its disbelief about the executive engineer not even paying heed to the office of the Advocate General, though the latter duly informed the official about the court's interim order not to encroach upon the private land for road construction.

“If the State is of the view that their officers have no legal knowledge, then it is a high time for the State to consider as to whether such officers are to be retained in the service or not? How the State can promote the violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the country only on the ground that their officers have no legal knowledge?”, the court had raised these questions after the State tried to justify the stance of the executive engineer who dodged the court's query as to whether the interim order to stop the usage of private land had been complied with or not.

Before the High Court, the executive engineer stuck to his statement that the road was in existence 40-50 years before and nothing illegal had been done afresh, despite the State's admission that it was a private land. He had merely stated that the road is not being used at the moment.

Consequently, the single judge bench has also ordered the official to pay mesne profits to the tune of Rs 15,000/- each day till the road being constructed under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna is dismantled or the land is acquired by the government legally.

“Since, the said illegal activity of not complying the interim order is of Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa, therefore, this Court would not like to put an additional pressure on the public exchequer and, therefore, it is directed that mense profits shall be recovered from the salary of Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa”, the bench sitting at Indore clarified.

The court underscored that the executive engineer failed in his obligations to place hurdles and comply with the interim order so that no one could encroach upon the private land of the petitioner. Incidentally, a show-cause notice will also be issued against the engineer prior to the commencement of contempt proceedings.

“…State Counsel was under a misconstrued hope and belief that Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa must have carried out their instructions about the stoppage of use of the private land as road, surprisingly and shockingly Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa did not listen even to the O/o Advocate General”, the court observed.

At this juncture, the court also asked the Principal Secretary of the PwD Department to submit an affidavit stating whether mesne profits have been paid to the petitioner from the salary of the Executive Engineer and how much that amount has cumulatively reached by 31^st May. The Chief Secretary of the State has been instructed by the court to take immediate action against the engineer for his hostile attitude towards the state's citizens and the authority of law.

About the aspect of constructing a road on the private land of the petitioner citing adverse possession, the court highlighted that the question of law is no longer res integra. Time and again, the state has been prevented from claiming adverse possession over land owned by a private individual, the court inferred by examining the precedent in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 569. In this case, a plea was taken by the state that it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years and can claim adverse possession, which was disregarded by the apex court.

“The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. 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 apex court had noted in the said case.

Hence, while directing the state to remove the road situated on the private land immediately, the court held the act of state to be violative of the constitutional right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution as well as violative of his human rights.

For Petitioner: Advocate Chandrahas Dubey

For Respondents: Dy Advocate General Swati Aseem George and Govt. Advocate Mohan Sausarkar

Case Name: Bhaskardutt Dwivedi v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Panchayat Development Secretary, And Rural Department & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 13236 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 112

Click Here To Read/ Download Order