1. Bhatt claimed to have met all of the requirements to acquire a strip of public land through adverse possession. Which element did the court find had not been met? Why?
2. What is the "potential trouble, both ahead and behind, for a pair of public works projects" hinted at in this case? In whose favor is that "trouble" likely to be resolved?
3. Should a private party, by encroaching on a public right-of-way, be able to acquire title adverse to the public rights? Discuss.