New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India on 19/11/2024 while speaking through a Bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B.Varale retreated that the State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession by citing a judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in case tiled Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.

New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India on 19/11/2024 while speaking through Bench consist of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B.Varale retreated that State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession by citing a judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in a case tiled Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.

What is Adverse Possession?

Adverse possession is a legal concept that allows a person to claim ownership of land they don't legally own if they occupy it for a certain amount of time without the owner's permission:

Facts of the case

The dispute pertains to a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas Pukhta comprised in

Khasra No. 2348 (0-10 Biswas) and Khasra No. 2458 (0-8 Biswas), situated within the revenue estate of Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The land is located on both sides of National Highway No.10, which connects Delhi and Bahadurgarh.

On 28th March 1981, the original plaintiffs, namely, Shri Amin Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession of the suit property before the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bahadurgarh. They claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records and alleged that the defendants had unauthorized occupied the land approximately three and a half years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs contended that despite repeated requests and a legal notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendants failed to vacate the land.

The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested the suit by filing a written statement dated 17th September, 1985. They raised preliminary objections, asserting that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1879-80.

They claimed that their possession was open, hostile, and adverse to the plaintiffs, and as such, they had become owners by way of adverse possession. The defendants also contended that the land had been used as a store by the PWD and its predecessor entities, including the District Board and Zila Parishad, for over a century.

Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following main issues:

“A. Whether the State of Haryana has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession?

B. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?” The plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and produced revenue records, including copies of jamabandis (Exhibits P1 to P9). The defendants examined ten witnesses and produced various documents, including revenue records dating back to 1879-80 (Exhibits D1 to D22).

On 2nd May 1986, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. It held that the defendants had failed to prove that they had become owners by adverse possession. Mere placement of bitumen drums and construction of a boundary wall in 1980 did not constitute adverse possession. The plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit, as they were recorded as owners in the jamabandis. The defendants' possession, if any, was permissive and not hostile.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the evidence, allowed the appeal on 8th October 1987 and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

The Appellate Court held that:

• The plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership, as they did not produce the sale deeds or mutation records establishing their title.

• The jamabandi entries in favor of the plaintiffs were doubtful and appeared to be manipulated.

• The defendants and their predecessors had been in continuous possession of the suit land since 1879-80.

• The defendant's (State)' possession was open, continuous, and adverse, thereby perfecting their title by adverse possession.

• The plaintiffs were attempting to grab the land by manipulating revenue records.3.8.

The plaintiffs filed RSA No. 3818 of 1987 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

“I. Whether the State can set up the plea of adverse possession, and does it imply admitting the title of the plaintiffs?

II. Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court suffer from illegality and perversity?”

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that:

• By taking the plea of adverse possession, the defendants impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiffs.

• The State cannot claim title through adverse possession against its own citizens.

• The defendants failed to specifically deny the plaintiffs' title as required under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• The possession of the defendants was permissive, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80.

• The First Appellate Court erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the plaintiffs and in not appreciating the evidence correctly.  

Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the defendants (State of Haryana) approached the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court of India cited its earlier judgment in the case titled Vidya Devi v. State of H.P and allowed the appeal in favour of private persons saying that, “The appellants(state) claim that due to their long and continuous possession of the suit property since 1879-80, they have perfected their title, is also not sustainable in law. However, it is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens. In Vidya Devi v. State of H.P, this Court emphatically held that the State cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession.

The relevant paragraphs from this judgment are reproduced hereunder:

“12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.

The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension.

12.11. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession. The State being a welfare State cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.”

Also thus the apex court ruled that 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'(state) plea of adverse possession is untenable in law.