Allowing State To Appropriate Private Property Via Adverse Possession Undermines Constitutional Rights Of Citizens & Erodes Public Trust: SC

The Supreme Court observed that, allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession undermines the Constitutional Rights of citizens and erodes public trust in the Government.

The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it allowed the regular second Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored the Decree of the Trial Court.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government. Therefore, the appellants' plea of adverse possession is untenable in law.”

The Bench took note of the fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Santosh Paul appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

In this case, the dispute was related to a piece of land and the original Plaintiffs filed a Suit for possession of the property before the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class. They claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records and alleged that the Defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the land around 3.5 years prior to the filing of the Suit. They contended that, despite repeated requests and a legal notice, the Defendants failed to vacate the land.

The Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiffs and being aggrieved, the Defendants filed an Appeal before the District Judge. The First Appellate Court allowed the same and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Suit. Resultantly, the Plaintiffs approached the High Court and it allowed the Appeal. Therefore, the Defendants i.e., the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The plaintiffs relied on jamabandi entries to establish their ownership. The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Exhibit P1) records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half share. Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.”

The Court said that the Appellants' possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80, was permissive and conditional and the entry describes the possession as "Bikhar Bahali Kaza," meaning till the existence of an orchard. It added that such permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession.

“Furthermore, the acts relied upon by the appellants—such as placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing a boundary wall in 1980—do not constitute adverse possession. Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period. In this case, the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility and the requisite duration”, it further elucidated.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and it rightly set aside the First Appellate Court’s Judgment.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title- The State of Haryana & Anr. v. Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 875)

Appearance:

Appellants: ASG Vikramjeet Banarjee, AAG Hemant Gupta, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Shivang Jain, Varun Goel, Nitikaa Guptha, Saurabh Gupta, Sabarni Som, Kanika, and Fateh Singh.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Santosh Paul, AORs Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Satyendra Kumar, Advocates Amaan Khan, Harikesh Singh, R.D. Jatain, and Sandeep Sinhmar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment