The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant ruling regarding the principle of adverse possession, clarifying that state governments cannot claim adverse possession over private property belonging to citizens. This landmark decision was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale on November 19, 2024, in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Amin Lal (Since Deceased).
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฑ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป?
Adverse possession is a legal principle allowing someone, who occupies another's land continuously, openly, and hostilely for a statutory period, to acquire ownership rights. Possession should be continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner.
๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ
The original plaintiffs, Shri Amin Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession in 1981, alleging unauthorized occupation by the defendants—the State of Haryana and its Public Works Department (PWD). Despite multiple requests and a legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendants refused to vacate the property. The State contested the suit, asserting continuous possession since 1879-80 and claiming ownership through adverse possession.
๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐’๐ ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐๐๐ถ๐: ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐
1. ๐๐ฑ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฑ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ง๐ถ๐๐น๐ฒ:
By asserting adverse possession, the State inherently admitted the plaintiffs' title. Failure to deny ownership in specific terms under Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC further strengthened the plaintiffs' claim.
2. ๐ฉ๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐๐: The Court held that the State’s plea of adverse possession violated citizens' fundamental right to property, guaranteed as a constitutional and human right. It emphasized that such actions by a welfare State erode public trust.
3. ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: The Supreme Court found that the State's possession was permissive rather than hostile, failing to meet the necessary criteria for adverse possession, which requires continuous, open, and hostile occupation for a statutory period.
4. ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐’๐ ๐ฅ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ: The High Court identified significant legal errors in the First Appellate Court's findings, including an incorrect burden of proof placement and disregard for material evidence like jamabandi entries and sale deeds. It rightly restored the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, upholding the High Court’s judgment. It ruled that the State’s adverse possession claim was legally untenable and reaffirmed that the State cannot appropriate private property arbitrarily.
This ruling serves as a critical precedent in protecting private property rights in India, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to uphold constitutional guarantees and ensuring that state actions remain lawful and ethical. The decision highlights the importance of vigilance in property disputes and affirms the rule of law as fundamental to democracy.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Actโwhich extends deadlines when courts are closedโapplies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.