Supreme Court Decides: State Cannot Set Up the Plea of Adverse Possession Against Citizens

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).

 

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻?

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.

 

𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲

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.

 

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁’𝘀 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀: 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀

1. 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲:

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. 𝗩𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀: 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. 𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: 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. 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁’𝘀 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲: 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. 

 

𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

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: