Montgomery Discussion

Case 24.3

Montgomery County v. Bhatt

Court of Appeals of Maryland, 446 Md. 79, 130 A.3d 424 (2016).

Facts The Capital Crescent Trail is a well-known hiking and biking route that runs between the District

of Columbia and Silver Spring, Maryland. The path was formerly used as a railroad line and was

later sold to Montgomery County, Maryland, for $10 million. The county planned to use the

Maryland portion of the property for the proposed Purple Line, a commuter light rail project.

Ajay Bhatt owns a residence backing on the county-owned property. He purchased the residence

in 2006 from his aunt, who had owned it since the 1970s. Montgomery County issued a civil

citation to Bhatt for having a shed and a fence on his property that was within the former railroad

line’s right-of-way. The county had obtained the right-of-way from the railroad company

pursuant to the federal Rails-to-Trails Act. A state district court found Bhatt guilty and ordered

him to remove the fence and shed.

Bhatt appealed, claiming that he owned the encroached-upon land by adverse possession.

Because a fence had been standing in its current location (beyond the property line) since 1963,

Bhatt argued that he had met the state’s twenty-year period for adverse possession. A circuit

court vacated the district court’s decision and held that Bhatt had a credible claim for adverse

possession. The county appealed, contending that because a railroad line is analogous to a public

highway for most purposes, the land in question is not subject to an adverse possession claim.

Issue Can Bhatt establish title to land that is within a railroad line’s right-of-way by adverse

possession?

Decision

No. A state intermediate appellate court reversed the lower court. Railroad companies operate as

a public use, and land that is held by government for public use cannot be acquired by adverse

possession.

Reason According to the court, “Nothing is more solidly established than the rule that title to property

held by a municipal corporation in its governmental capacity, for a public use, cannot be

acquired by adverse possession.” Public highways are not subject to a claim for adverse

possession, except in the limited circumstances when the government has clearly abandoned its

right to the land. The court reasoned that a railroad line is in many essential respects like a public

highway and thus should be treated the same. Bhatt had not shown that the county had

abandoned its interest in the right-of-way, so he could not claim adverse possession.

Critical Thinking

● Legal Environment Bhatt claimed to have met all of the requirements to acquire land

through adverse possession. Based on the facts provided, which element would a court

likely find was lacking?