Question Description
Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the following passage and answer the question.A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’, the court said. Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.“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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.Ordering the state to pay her Rs1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a human/legal right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.Property ceased to be a human/legal right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.Q.If case of a property acquired by the government, if true, which of the following argument can be used by the owner of the property to support his case against such acquisition?a)Due to Process of law was not followed by the government before acquiring his property.b)He has been in the possession of the property for more than 40 years.c)The Government failed to pay money equivalent to market price of the property.d)His Property was acquired before 1967.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.