The State cannot claim title over a citizen's property by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession.

The Municipal Corporation Gwalior (the appellant) challenged an order dated January 16, 2025, passed by a Single Judge in W.P. No. 1287/2015.

The Single Judge had directed the Corporation to either restore land to the respondent (a cooperative society) by removing an existing road and park or formally acquire the land under prevailing laws.

The appellant admitted the respondent's ownership of the land but contended that because the road and park had existed for over 30 years, the State and Corporation had perfected their title via "adverse possession".

1. Whether a citizen can be deprived of their property by the State without following the due procedure established by law.

2. Whether the State, as a welfare entity, can claim ownership over a citizen's land based on the doctrine of adverse possession.

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569, establishing that the right to property is a human and constitutional right, and the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession against its own citizens.

Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024), which outlined seven sub-rights under Article 300-A, including the right to notice, the right to a reasoned decision, and the right to fair compensation.

The court found that since the appellant conceded the respondent's ownership, the occupation of the land for a road and park without formal acquisition constituted a violation of Article 300-A.

The court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the 30-year duration of the encroachment, noting that under the Vidya Devi precedent, the State is a welfare entity and cannot act as a "trespasser" to grab land through adverse possession.

The court emphasized that dispossession without legal sanction is a "continuing cause of action," and therefore, delays or laches do not extinguish the property owner's right to seek restitution or compensation.

The court reasoned that the Corporation must either vacate the land or follow the statutory acquisition process, as "acquisition by ambush" is constitutionally impermissible.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, holding that the Municipal Corporation must either restore the land by removing the structures or initiate formal acquisition proceedings and subsequently dismissed the Writ Appeal.