Introduction:
The case deals with the issue of adverse possession and the rights of citizens over their property via the State. The Court clarified that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens, reinforcing the importance of respecting private property rights in a democratic system governed by the rule of law.
Facts:
Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar filed a civil suit in 1981, claiming ownership of 18 Biswas Pukhta land near National Highway 10, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, alleging unauthorized occupation by the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD).
The State of Haryana argued that it had continuous possession of the land since 1879-80, asserting adverse possession, as it had been using the land for storing bitumen drums and constructing a boundary wall.
The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the constitutional right to private property and rejecting the State’s claim of adverse possession.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Issues:
- Whether the State of Haryana can claim adverse possession against its own citizens?
- Whether the revenue records, along with sale deeds and mutation entries, are sufficient to support the plaintiffs' ownership claim?
- Whether the acts of the State, such as placing bitumen drums and constructing a boundary wall, are sufficient to establish adverse possession?
Contention of Petitioner:
The State contended that it had been in continuous possession of the land since 1879-80 and had used the land for storing bitumen drums and constructing a boundary wall. The State argued that this constituted adverse possession, which would allow it to claim ownership of the land. The State claimed that the revenue records were manipulated by the plaintiffs to establish ownership.
Contention of Respondent:
The plaintiffs asserted their ownership of the land, supported by revenue records and other documentary evidence such as sale deeds and mutation entries. They denied the State's claim of adverse possession, stating that the land was not used in a manner that would satisfy the criteria for adverse possession. The plaintiffs argued that the State’s possession was permissive and conditional, not hostile.
Court's Analysis:
The Court held that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens. Adverse possession requires continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile possession for a statutory period, which the State failed to demonstrate in this case.
The Court noted that the State implicitly admitted the plaintiffs' title by claiming adverse possession, as it did not specifically deny the allegations made in the plaint.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, reaffirming that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting property rights and ensuring that the State follows legal procedures in dealing with private property. The judgment underscored that the State’s possession, described as conditional in the Misal Hakiyat, did not meet the criteria for adverse possession. The Court also upheld the correctness of the plaintiffs' ownership claim supported by revenue records and other evidence.
