In a packed Court No. 3 at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the atmosphere on Tuesday afternoon felt oddly tense. A simple village road dispute from Barabanki had ballooned into a larger debate on citizens’ property rights. By the end, the bench made it absolutely clear: the State cannot simply build a road on someone’s land without following the law.
Background
The case arose when Kaushal Kishore and his co-petitioner complained that a 4-metre-wide khadanja road had been constructed on 0.109 hectares of their farmland in Village Andka, Siddhaur Block, without any acquisition or compensation.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
During the arguments, their lawyers explained that the land had been in the family “since ancestors’ time,” and that even though villagers did walk across parts of the field earlier, no official road existed in government records. Demarcation conducted by the Revenue Inspector in August 2023 confirmed that the Gram Panchayat had extended the road on three sides of the field, beyond the existing recorded path.
The petitioners said they were initially assured by local Panchayat officials that compensation would be processed once funds were released-“but nothing moved,” their counsel remarked, almost with a hint of frustration.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar, did not hide its displeasure at how casually the authorities handled private land.
At one point, Justice Prashant Kumar remarked that the State’s stance of adverse possession was “surprising,” a word he used even in the written order. The bench observed, “The State being a welfare State cannot perfect its title by claiming adverse possession over a citizen’s land.”
The State tried to argue that villagers had been using the passage for 30–40 years, therefore no compensation should be paid now. But the judges pushed back, pointing to multiple Supreme Court rulings-including Vidya Devi, Tukaram Kana Joshi, and others-where the top court stressed that property may not be taken without legal authority.
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Key Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction After 2015 NI Act
At another moment, the court noted that oral consent cannot be cited to justify taking over land: “Such a plea cannot be accepted in the absence of legal sanction,” the bench held.
The judges repeatedly highlighted that property rights are not mere technical rights-they are constitutional and human rights.
Decision
Wrapping up the hearing, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The order states that if the government intends to keep using the road built on the petitioners’ land, it must first follow the acquisition process and pay appropriate compensation under the law. The authorities have been given twelve weeks to calculate and release the payment.
And with that, the matter ended-firmly reminding the administration that even in small villages, the rule of law cannot be bypassed.
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore & Another vs. State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue & Others
Case No.: WRIT – C No. 8222 of 2024
Case Type: Writ Petition (Mandamus – compensation for land used for public road)
Decision Date: 26 November 2025
