Supreme Court: State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Against Citizens’ Property

Keywords: Adverse Possession, Land Dispute, Constitutional Rights, State of Haryana, Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25213 of 2024, upholding the High Court’s decision affirming private ownership in a land dispute between the State of Haryana and the plaintiffs, Amin Lal (deceased) and others. The Court ruled that the State cannot claim adverse possession over private property, emphasizing constitutional principles and property rights.

Case Background

The dispute concerned 18 Biswas Pukhta in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, situated along National Highway No. 10. The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1981, seeking possession of the land based on ownership derived from revenue records and sale deeds. The State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD) countered by claiming adverse possession, asserting their occupation since 1879-80.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, while the First Appellate Court overturned this decision. The High Court reinstated the Trial Court’s decision, prompting the State to file the present SLP before the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Petitioners (State of Haryana)

1. Failure to Prove Title: The plaintiffs lacked valid sale deeds or title documents, relying solely on revenue records, which were deemed insufficient.
2. Adverse Possession: Continuous possession since 1879-80 created a presumption of ownership.
3. Limitation Period: The suit was barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
4. Declaratory Relief: Plaintiffs should have sought a title declaration before claiming possession.
5. Plaintiffs’ Conduct: The State argued the plaintiffs manipulated revenue records and acted as “land grabbers.”

Contentions of the Respondents (Plaintiffs)

1. Admission of Title: The State’s plea of adverse possession inherently acknowledged the plaintiffs’ ownership.
2. State Barred from Adverse Possession: Such a claim contradicts constitutional principles.
3. Permissive Possession: The State’s occupation was conditional, not hostile, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80.
4. Valid Ownership Proof: Ownership was established through revenue records, sale deeds, and sanctioned mutations.
5. Burden of Proof: The burden rested on the defendants to substantiate adverse possession, which they failed to do.

Observations of the Court

1. Acknowledgment of Ownership: By asserting adverse possession, the State implicitly admitted the plaintiffs’ title.
2. Failure to Prove Adverse Possession: The acts cited by the State—such as placing drums or temporary structures—lacked elements of hostility, exclusivity, and continuity.
3. Constitutional Principles: The Court underscored that a State entity claiming adverse possession against citizens’ property is fundamentally inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
4. Burden of Proof Misapplied: The First Appellate Court erred in shifting the burden to the plaintiffs, disregarding evidence like jamabandis and sale deeds.

Ruling and Significance

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that:

• The plaintiffs’ ownership was valid and supported by substantial evidence.
• The State’s claim of adverse possession was impermissible and unsupported by legal or factual grounds.
• The First Appellate Court’s findings were flawed, warranting High Court intervention.

The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the plaintiffs’ property rights and rejecting the State’s adverse possession claim.

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark ruling reinforces the principle that government entities cannot exploit adverse possession doctrines to claim citizens’ property. It emphasizes the importance of constitutional safeguards in protecting private property rights and sets a precedent for similar disputes involving public authorities.

Case Title: State of Haryana & Anr. v. Amin Lal (Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 713 SC
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.