No Limitation on Constitutional Duty to Compensate for Unlawful State Use of Private Land – Commentary on Sri H.P. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

1. Introduction

This commentary analyses the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Sri H.P. Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., W.P. No. 3982 of 2023 (LA-RES), decided on 25 November 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna.

The case concerns a familiar, yet legally fraught, scenario across India: governmental authorities, decades ago, constructed a public institution (a government school) and formed an access road on private agricultural land without any formal acquisition and without paying compensation. Several generations later, the landowners approach the court seeking compensation, and the State resists by invoking delay, limitation, alleged “voluntary” surrender, and “public interest”.

The judgment situates this fact situation within the broad constitutional jurisprudence on the right to property under Article 300A and the doctrine of rule of law, relying heavily on a line of Supreme Court authorities culminating in Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra. It decisively rejects the State’s attempt to use the passage of time as a shield against its obligation to compensate for unlawful expropriation.

Beyond reaffirming Supreme Court doctrine, the High Court articulates, with unusual clarity, a principle that can be distilled as follows:

No individual’s private property shall be wrested away by the State save through the due process ordained by law. Even where the State has utilised private land for public purposes decades ago, and even if the initial handing over was “voluntary” or unopposed, the constitutional duty to compensate is not extinguished by time, delay or laches.

The judgment therefore has significant implications for a large class of cases in which schools, roads, tanks and other public facilities stand on private land that was never formally acquired.

---

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 Parties and Property

• Petitioners:
  • Sri H.P. Ramesh (Petitioner No. 1); and
  • his daughter, Smt. Sushmitha H.R. (Petitioner No. 2).
• Respondents:
  • State of Karnataka, Revenue Department (Respondent No. 1);
  • Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District (Respondent No. 2).
• Land in question:
  • Survey No. 51/1, Haradagere Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District;
  • Extent owned: 2 acres 8 guntas, originally in the name of petitioner’s father;
  • On 04.12.2017, Petitioner No. 1 gifted the property to Petitioner No. 2 by registered gift deed.

2.2 Historical Use of the Land by the State

It was undisputed that:

• around 1957–58, a Government school building was constructed on a portion of the said land; and
• another portion of the same survey number was used for the formation of a road connecting to/serving that school and the village.

The Deputy Commissioner’s enquiry (impugned order dated 08.11.2021) found that:

• 3 guntas of the petitioners’ land were under the school building; and
• 4 to 6 guntas were used for the formation of the road.

Crucially, at no point did the State claim that there had been:

• any formal acquisition proceedings under any Land Acquisition Act;
• any registered conveyance or gift deed executed in favour of the State; or
• any compensation paid to the landowners.

2.3 Prior Litigation and Orders

(a) W.P. No. 12385/2016

After making several representations seeking compensation for the land used for the school and road, the first petitioner filed W.P. No. 12385/2016. A co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition on 19.09.2019, directing the Deputy Commissioner to:

1. hear the petitioner,
2. determine whether the land used for the road and school belonged to the petitioner or the Government; and
3. if it belonged to the petitioner and he was not an encroacher, then:
   • the authorities must “proceed in accordance with law to acquire the land” by specifying the extent required; and
   • pay compensation as per law.

This order squarely put the onus on the Deputy Commissioner to either:

• demonstrate that the land was government land (no compensation), or
• if private, ensure acquisition and compensation.

(b) Impugned Order of the Deputy Commissioner (08.11.2021)

Pursuant to the High Court’s direction, the Deputy Commissioner conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order on 08.11.2021. The Kannada portions extracted in the judgment reveal the core reasoning:

• the school has been in existence on the land for about 60–70 years;
• the road similarly existed for decades;
• the petitioners’ ancestors and villagers had never objected nor claimed compensation;
• no formal objection was raised at the time when the school was constructed or later; and
• therefore, the land is treated as having been effectively dedicated for public purpose and the State is not required to acquire it now.

In summary, the Deputy Commissioner concluded that:

Because the land had been used continuously for a school and road since about 1957–58, with no objection from the landowners or their successors, and having become part of public infrastructure, no acquisition or compensation was necessary.

(c) Contempt Proceedings and Further Steps

• The first petitioner filed C.C.C. No. 320/2022 alleging non-compliance with the 2019 High Court order.
• The contempt was dropped, giving liberty to challenge the Deputy Commissioner’s decision in appropriate proceedings.
• A review petition (R.P. No. 788/2022) was also filed and later withdrawn with liberty to pursue proper legal remedies.

(d) Present Writ Petition: W.P. No. 3982/2023

In the present writ petition under Article 226, the petitioners sought:

1. quashing of the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 08.11.2021; and
2. a direction (mandamus) to:
   • formally acquire the portion of land (9 guntas – 3 guntas under the school and 6 guntas under the road); and
   • award compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013).

2.4 State’s Defence Before the High Court

The State’s objections and affidavit, as summarised in paras 5–10 of its statement, were:

• The father of the petitioner had voluntarily allowed the land to be used for school and road in 1957.
• Neither the family nor villagers objected for over 60 years.
• The petitioners are now estopped from claiming compensation due to:
  • long silence (delay and laches);
  • the bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 (12-year limitation for recovery of possession or associated claims);
  • the State’s continuous, open and peaceful possession for 60 years, amounting to adverse possession.
• The land has been used for a noble public purpose (education) for 60 years, and any disruption or compensation now would harm public interest and set a bad precedent.
• By allowing the school to function uninterrupted, the land must be treated as having been constructively dedicated to public use, such dedication being irrevocable once accepted and used by the public.

---

3. Issues Before the Court

While not framed as formal issues, the judgment addresses the following central questions:

1. Whether, on the State’s own admission that private land (3 guntas for a school and 4–6 guntas for a road) has been utilised for public purposes without formal acquisition or compensation, the petitioners are still entitled to compensation after a lapse of more than 60 years.
2. Whether alleged voluntary surrender, “oral consent” or “magnanimity” of the original owner in 1957 can, without any legal documentation or statutory procedure, divest the landowners (or their successors) of title and extinguish their claim for compensation.
3. Whether delay, limitation, laches, estoppel, adverse possession or “constructive dedication to public use” can operate as a valid defence for the State against a claim for compensation in constitutional writ proceedings.
4. Whether the State is obliged to compute compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, treating the case as one of deemed acquisition, despite the expropriation having occurred in the late 1950s.

---

4. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Nagaprasanna allowed the writ petition, quashed the Deputy Commissioner’s order, and held that:

• The State unequivocally admitted that private land of the petitioners was utilised for a school and road.
• The State’s reliance on:
  • alleged voluntary surrender in 1957,
  • passage of 60+ years,
  • limitation and laches, and
  • constructive dedication to public use
  is contrary to law.
• Under the constitutional scheme, especially Article 300A, and in light of Supreme Court precedents, the State cannot become an encroacher of private property, nor can it regularise its unlawful possession by simply invoking lapse of time.
• Even if land was handed over “voluntarily” or the owners never objected, the State must justify its possession through law – by acquisition or some other legally recognised mode – and must pay compensation.
• There is no limitation to doing justice in such cases where the State has, without authority of law, taken private property for public use.
• Accordingly, compensation must be determined under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, treating the case as one of deemed acquisition.

The operative directions are:

1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 08.11.2021 is quashed.
3. The respondents are directed to:
   • determine compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and
   • pass necessary orders in accordance with law within three months from receipt of the judgment.

---

5. Core Legal Reasoning

5.1 The Constitutional Status of the Right to Property

The judgment roots its reasoning in the evolution of the right to property:

• In 1957, when the school was constructed, the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31, Part III of the Constitution.
• After the Forty-Fourth Amendment (1978), it ceased to be a fundamental right but survived as a constitutional right under Article 300A and as a human right.

Quoting and relying on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court notes that:

• Article 300A mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.
• From this, an obligation to pay compensation when property is taken for a public purpose is inferred.
• Forcible dispossession without due process is both:
  • a violation of the constitutional right under Article 300A; and
  • a breach of basic human rights.

The Court endorses the Supreme Court’s characterisation (in Delhi Airtech Services, Mukesh Kumar, etc.) of the right to property as a basic safeguard against governmental tyranny and economic oppression.

5.2 Rule of Law and the State’s High Threshold of Legality

The Court invokes a long-standing principle, tracing back to the 1765 King’s Bench decision in Entick v. Carrington and adopted in Indian law through Wazir Chand v. State of H.P.:

Nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process or authorisation of law. When the State takes property, it must point to a clear legal pedigree for its actions.

This “high threshold of legality” is especially stringent when the State, rather than a private party, is the actor. The Court reiterates the position from Bishan Das and Dharmander Prasad Singh that:

• Even a lessor with best of title cannot forcibly resume possession without due process.
• The State, as lessor or as acquirer, has no special privilege to dispossess without resort to law.

Applied to the present case, the Court observes that:

• The State admits it has used the petitioners’ land for a school and road.
• There is no trace of any statutory acquisition or legal conveyance.
• Therefore, the State’s possession is without authority of law, making it, in legal effect, a trespasser.

The Court expressly records that “the government prima facie cannot become an encroacher of a private property” and brands the Deputy Commissioner’s approach as “contrary to law”.

5.3 Delay, Laches, Limitation and Continuing Cause of Action

The State’s central defence was delay and limitation: the alleged dispossession occurred about 1957, and the petition has been filed roughly 65 years later. The State argued that:

• the claim was barred by the 12-year limitation for recovery of possession/compensation; and
• extraordinary delay should disentitle the petitioners from relief under Article 226.

The Court, drawing directly from Vidya Devi, Tukaram Kana Joshi and particularly Sukh Dutt Ratra, rejects this defence:

• Delay and laches cannot bar relief where:
  • there is a continuous wrong (continued unauthorised occupation), or
  • the circumstances shock the judicial conscience.
• There is no fixed period of limitation for constitutional courts to exercise writ jurisdiction to remedy gross illegality in expropriation of property.
• The State’s illegal continuation in possession is itself a continuing cause of action.
• The State’s own conduct often causes the delay – it only initiates acquisition or pays compensation when forced by court orders, selectively and inconsistently.

The Court quotes with approval the principle from Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service that delay-based defences must be assessed on equitable considerations, including:

• the length of the delay; and
• the nature of the actions taken during the interim and whether granting relief now would be unjust.

In such cases, where:

• the State has clandestinely or casually appropriated private land for public use, and
• never regularised that acquisition except for those landowners who specifically litigated,

the equities are firmly in favour of the dispossessed landowners.

The judgment thus echoes the Supreme Court’s emphatic statement:

“There cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice.”

5.4 Rejection of “Voluntary Surrender” and “Constructive Dedication”

A notable feature of this judgment is its treatment of the State’s plea that the petitioners’ father had “voluntarily” given the land in 1957, and that the land stood “constructively dedicated” to public use.

The Court implicitly adopts, and extends, the reasoning in Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra:

• Oral consent or unrecorded “voluntary” giving of land for a public purpose is legally insufficient to divest title.
• In the absence of written consent or a legally cognisable instrument (such as a registered gift deed in favour of the State, or a statutory acquisition), the land remains private property.
• The notion that long use by the public converts private land into “irrevocably dedicated” public land is vigorously rejected, particularly when the State has never obtained title lawfully.

The Court goes one step further by articulating a strong normative proposition:

“Thus, when the State by its own hand has taken away the possession of the citizen's private land, whether by force, oversight or voluntarily handed over, it must meet the threshold of justification by grant of compensation.”

This implies that even if an original landowner magnanimously allowed the construction of a school on his land without insisting on compensation or documentation, that generosity does not legally relieve the State from:

• formalising the transfer in accordance with law; and
• ensuring that just compensation is paid, at least to successors-in-title, when the issue is raised later.

The Court thereby disapproves of local administrative practices where land is taken based on loose oral assurances, “village resolutions”, or informal understandings, without legal documentation.

5.5 Adverse Possession and Public Purpose

While adverse possession is not discussed at length in this judgment, the Court relies on Vidya Devi and Mukesh Kumar to implicitly reject the State’s attempt to rely on having been in continuous, open and peaceful occupation for 60 years.

The Supreme Court in Vidya Devi had held that:

• the State, as a welfare State, cannot claim adverse possession over its own citizens’ land;
• to do so would be to legitimise the State’s role as a trespasser.

Justice Nagaprasanna follows this, regarding such pleas as inconsistent with the State’s obligation under the Constitution and public law to act fairly and lawfully.

5.6 Application of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 as “Deemed Acquisition”

A significant operational part of the judgment is the direction that compensation be computed and paid under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

The Court relies on the Supreme Court’s approach in Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra, which treated similar fact situations as cases of “deemed acquisition”:

• The State had already taken physical possession long ago without following any legal process.
• Instead of ordering physical restoration (which might disrupt public facilities and be practically impossible), the Court:
  • recognises the reality of State possession and public use;
  • but demands that it be retrospectively legitimised by requiring the State to pay full compensation as if the land had been lawfully acquired.

In this case, the Karnataka High Court:

• does not order demolition of the school or removal of the road;
• instead, directs the State to determine compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which is substantially more generous than the pre-2013 Land Acquisition Act.

The implicit rationale is:

• RFCTLARR is the operative law governing land acquisition and compensation today; and
• where the State’s earlier expropriation was void of authority, it must now regularise the situation by paying compensation as per current law.

This effectively confers on the petitioners the benefit of enhanced compensation that would not have been available had the State acquired the land lawfully in 1957. That outcome underscores the cost of governmental non-compliance with law.

5.7 Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: No “Civil Suit Only” Bar

The State argued that, given disputed questions of fact and issues of limitation, the petitioners should pursue a civil suit rather than a writ petition. The Court, following Sukh Dutt Ratra, rejects this.

Key points:

• When the core facts are not in dispute (here, State admits use of private land without acquisition), the writ court can intervene.
• The role of constitutional courts is to:
  • protect fundamental and constitutional rights;
  • uphold the rule of law; and
  • provide effective relief where State action is patently without authority of law.
• In State of U.P. v. Manohar, the Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction is particularly appropriate where there is “utter lack of legal authority” for State deprivation of property.

Justice Nagaprasanna, therefore, exercises writ jurisdiction to:

• quash the Deputy Commissioner’s unlawful order; and
• direct determination and payment of compensation, rather than driving the petitioners to protracted civil litigation.

---

6. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

6.1 Entick v. Carrington (1765, King’s Bench)

The judgment reproduces an extensive extract from Entick v. Carrington, a seminal English decision where the King’s Bench held that:

• State officers entering and searching a private house, seizing papers, etc., without lawful warrant, committed trespass.
• There is no State prerogative to violate private property in the absence of clear legal authority.
• Property rights are so sacrosanct that even stepping on another’s land without lawful justification constitutes trespass.

The Karnataka High Court uses Entick to emphasise that:

• the principle that the State must justify every intrusion into private property by reference to law is centuries old; and
• this principle is central to the concept of the rule of law, later embedded in the Indian Constitution.

6.2 Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1954) 1 SCC 787

In Wazir Chand, goods were seized from the petitioner’s premises by police without any legal authority or magistrate’s warrant.

The Supreme Court held that:

• even if the petitioner’s title to the goods was disputed, seizing them without authority of law was impermissible;
• goods cannot be taken from any person’s possession except under authority of law.

The Karnataka High Court relies on Wazir Chand for the broader proposition that:

• State action affecting property, even in the absence of a clear title dispute resolution, must be legally justified;
• absence of a statutory basis renders such action unconstitutional and invalid.

6.3 Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569

Vidya Devi is a central authority in this judgment. In that case:

• the State had constructed a road on the appellant’s land in 1967 without acquisition, relying on alleged “oral consent”;
• decades later, the appellant sought compensation.

The Supreme Court held that:

• the right to property, then a fundamental right, could not be taken without due process and just compensation;
• after the Forty-Fourth Amendment, it continues as a constitutional and human right under Article 300A;
• oral consent or absence of protest does not authorise the State to divest property without following acquisition procedure;
• delay and laches do not bar relief in such cases of continuing violation;
• the State cannot claim adverse possession over its citizens’ land;
• the matter was treated as a deemed acquisition and compensation was directed on par with a similarly situated landowner.

Justice Nagaprasanna’s judgment echoes and applies all these principles almost verbatim, especially regarding:

• oral consent being insufficient;
• the continuing nature of the cause of action; and
• the remedy of deemed acquisition with RFCTLARR-based compensation.

6.4 Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 508

Sukh Dutt Ratra involved land taken in 1972–73 for construction of a road without acquisition. The State had selectively initiated acquisition proceedings only for those who had approached the Court.

The Supreme Court held that:

• the right to property, though no longer fundamental, retained constitutional protection under Article 300A;
• the State cannot evade its responsibility by invoking delay or laches where it took private land without authority of law;
• there is no limitation to doing justice in such situations; and
• compensation must be calculated as in a deemed acquisition, with solatium and interest, under the Land Acquisition framework.

The Karnataka High Court:

• quotes Sukh Dutt Ratra extensively;
• relies on its rejection of delay and laches defences; and
• applies the same remedial structure (deemed acquisition, compensation under RFCTLARR).

6.5 Other Supreme Court Authorities

The judgment also refers to or is built upon several other Supreme Court decisions:

• Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570:
  • administrative action evicting persons from property without due process violates the rule of law.
• State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505:
  • even a landlord-State cannot resume possession by force; “re-entry” must be through court process.
• Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627:
  • State’s power of eminent domain must be exercised for public purpose and with reasonable compensation.
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596:
  • Article 300A means no deprivation without “authority of law”; if there is no law, there can be no deprivation.
• K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1:
  • compensation, while not expressly in Article 300A, is implicit in lawful deprivation of property.
• Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354:
  • right to property described as a basic human right and safeguard against tyranny.
• N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517:
  • laws divesting property rights must be strictly construed in light of Article 300A.
• State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404:
  • right to property is constitutional, statutory and human right; adverse possession by State is impermissible.
• Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353:
  • where State takes land without sanction of law, it must either acquire or use some other statutory mode; delay does not justify denial of relief.
• State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126:
  • where there is utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of property, exercise of writ jurisdiction is eminently justified.
• Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, (1969) 1 SCR 808:
  • enunciates equitable principles for assessing delay and laches, emphasised in Sukh Dutt Ratra.

---

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Right to Property: Article 31 vs Article 300A

• Article 31 (pre-1978):
  • Right to property as a fundamental right;
  • Property could not be taken except by authority of law and upon payment of compensation.
• Article 300A (post-1978):
  • Right to property is no longer fundamental, but remains a constitutional right;
  • Provides: “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

Courts have read into Article 300A a requirement that if the State compulsorily takes private property for public purpose, it must pay reasonable compensation.

7.2 Eminent Domain

“Eminent domain” is the sovereign power of the State to:

• take private property for public purpose;
• subject to two conditions:
  • there must be a public purpose, and
  • compensation must be paid in accordance with law.

This power is exercised through land acquisition laws such as the (old) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

7.3 Adverse Possession

Adverse possession is a doctrine under the Limitation Act by which:

• a person who is not the owner but is in open, continuous, hostile possession of land for a prescribed period (typically 12 years) can acquire title; and
• the original owner loses his right to recover possession.

The Supreme Court has held that:

• while private persons may sometimes claim adverse possession, the State, as a welfare State, cannot use this doctrine to legitimise illegal occupation of its citizens’ property.

7.4 Delay and Laches vs Limitation

• Limitation:
  • statutory time-limits within which suits or appeals must be filed (e.g. 12 years to recover possession);
  • defence typically applies to civil suits, not directly to constitutional writs.
• Delay and laches:
  • an equitable doctrine; even without a statutory bar, courts may deny relief if the petitioner slept on his rights and granting relief would cause injustice.

In cases like this, where:

• the State has continuously and unlawfully occupied private land; and
• the cause of action is ongoing;

courts have consistently held that delay/laches cannot defeat a claim for compensation, especially in writ proceedings.

7.5 Deemed Acquisition

“Deemed acquisition” is not a statutory term but a judicial device used by the Supreme Court to:

• recognise the factual reality that the State has already taken possession and public works stand on the land;
• avoid disruptive orders of eviction or demolition; and
• still hold the State accountable by:
  • directing payment of full statutory compensation (as if the land were now lawfully acquired), and
  • often granting solatium and interest from an appropriate date.

This is what the High Court orders here by directing compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

7.6 RFCTLARR Act, 2013

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

• replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
• provides:
  • enhanced compensation (often several times the market value);
  • solatium (additional amount to offset the hardship of compulsory acquisition);
  • interest on compensation; and
  • rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in many cases.

By directing compensation under this Act, the Court ensures that the petitioners receive the full, contemporary statutory benefits, not outdated 1950s-era compensation.

7.7 Writ of Mandamus under Article 226

A writ of mandamus is a high prerogative order directing a public authority to perform a public or statutory duty.

Under Article 226, High Courts can issue mandamus to:

• correct illegal actions or omissions of State authorities;
• enforce constitutional and legal rights.

Here, the High Court issues something akin to mandamus by:

• quashing the Deputy Commissioner’s unlawful order; and
• compelling the respondents to determine and pay compensation under the 2013 Act.

7.8 “Gunta” and Survey Number

• A gunta is a unit of land measurement used in parts of South India:
  • 1 acre = 40 guntas;
  • thus 3 guntas = 0.075 acre; 9 guntas = 0.225 acre.
• Survey Number (Sy. No.):
  • a cadastral identifier used in revenue records to uniquely identify parcels of land within a village.

---

8. Impact and Implications

8.1 For Landowners and Citizens

• The judgment strengthens the position of landowners whose land has been used for schools, roads, tanks, public buildings, etc., without acquisition, often decades earlier.
• It reaffirms that:
  • the right to property is robustly protected under Article 300A and as a human right;
  • time alone does not extinguish the right to just compensation; and
  • children and grandchildren of original owners are not barred merely because their ancestors did not object in time.
• It offers a direct writ route (Article 226) to relief in appropriate cases, avoiding long civil suits.

8.2 For the State and Local Administration

• The decision sends a clear message to the State:
  • informal, undocumented “oral gifts” or “village consents” are not a lawful substitute for formal acquisition or registered conveyance;
  • reliance on delay, laches, estoppel or adverse possession in such cases will likely fail; and
  • the cost of ignoring acquisition laws may be higher because courts may apply the more generous RFCTLARR regime retroactively by way of deemed acquisition.
• Administratively, the State is incentivised to:
  • identify instances where public facilities stand on private land without proper acquisition;
  • initiate suo motu regularisation and compensation rather than wait for litigation; and
  • put an end to practices of taking land on mere oral assurances or village “resolutions”.

8.3 For the Judiciary

• The Karnataka High Court aligns its jurisprudence with the Supreme Court’s robust stance on Article 300A and State accountability.
• This decision will likely be cited in future Karnataka cases involving:
  • old unauthorised occupations by the State; and
  • claims of “voluntary donation” or “constructive dedication” of land for public purposes.
• The case exemplifies the High Court’s willingness to exercise corrective constitutional jurisdiction, rather than relegating citizens to civil suits when the State is plainly at fault.

8.4 Possible Increase in Similar Claims

Given the commonality of such fact situations across rural and semi-urban India, this judgment may:

• encourage more landowners (or their successors) to approach courts seeking compensation for land used long ago for schools, roads, etc.;
• necessitate strategic and fiscal planning by State governments to address such “legacy” encroachments by lawful acquisition and compensation schemes.

---

9. Conclusion: Key Takeaways

The decision in H.P. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka is a powerful reaffirmation, at the High Court level, of constitutional protections surrounding private property. Its significance lies in:

1. Uncompromising insistence on legality:
   • The State cannot take or retain private property for public purposes without authority of law and just compensation.
   • Long usage, however noble the purpose (education, roads), does not cure the original illegality.
2. No limitation to justice in such cases:
   • Delay, laches, and statutory limitation do not bar constitutional relief when the State has continuously remained in unlawful occupation of private land.
3. Rejection of informal “voluntary gift” narratives:
   • Oral consent, alleged generosity, or non-objection by earlier generations do not divest title or extinguish the right to compensation.
   • “Constructive dedication to public use” is not a legal doctrine that can override Article 300A.
4. Deemed acquisition and RFCTLARR regime:
   • Courts may treat such long-standing, unauthorised occupations as deemed acquisitions and direct compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, with all attendant benefits.
5. State’s status as a model litigant:
   • The judgment implicitly criticises attempts by the State to use technical defences to retain ill-gotten benefit.
   • It demands higher standards of legality and fairness from the government as a welfare State.

Perhaps the most enduring line from the judgment encapsulates its normative core:

“No individual's private property shall be wrested away by the State save through the due process ordained by law. To do otherwise, or to permit what is done otherwise, to stand would be to do violence to the constitutional fibre.”

In this sense, H.P. Ramesh is not merely a dispute over a few guntas of land. It is a clear and structured reaffirmation that constitutional courts will not allow the passage of time to erode the rule of law or to sanitise unconstitutional expropriation by the State.