Supreme Court Upholds Citizen’s Property Rights Against State’s Adverse Possession Claim: State of Haryana vs. Amin Lal (2024) INSC 875 (19 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 875
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prasanna B. Varale, J.
Can a state claim ownership of a citizen’s property through adverse possession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case between the State of Haryana and a private landowner. The Court unequivocally ruled that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens, reinforcing the protection of individual property rights. This judgment clarifies that the State, as a welfare entity, cannot seize private land through adverse possession, which is a legal concept designed to deal with private disputes, not state actions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

The dispute involves a piece of land in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, located on both sides of National Highway No. 10. The original plaintiffs, Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar, claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records. They filed a suit for possession in 1981, alleging that the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD) had unlawfully occupied the land approximately three and a half years prior. The plaintiffs asserted that despite repeated requests and a legal notice, the defendants failed to vacate the land.

The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested the suit, claiming continuous possession of the land since 1879-80. They argued that their possession was open, hostile, and adverse to the plaintiffs, thus establishing their ownership through adverse possession. The defendants further stated that the land had been used as a store by the PWD and its predecessors for over a century.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the defendants failed to prove their claim of adverse possession. The court noted that the defendants’ actions, such as placing bitumen drums and constructing a boundary wall in 1980, did not constitute adverse possession. The First Appellate Court, however, reversed the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership and that the defendants had established their title through adverse possession.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a regular second appeal, overturned the First Appellate Court’s judgment, restoring the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The High Court held that by claiming adverse possession, the defendants implicitly admitted the plaintiffs’ title and that the State cannot claim title through adverse possession against its own citizens.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with the requirement of serving a notice before filing a suit against the government or a public officer.
• Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule states that if a defendant does not specifically deny an allegation of fact in the plaint, it is deemed to be admitted.
• Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility and relevance of entries in public records made by a public servant in the discharge of their official duties.
• Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section provides that when a person is in possession of a property, the burden of proving that they are not the owner lies on the person who asserts that they are not the owner.
• Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article prescribes the limitation period for suits relating to possession of immovable property based on title.

Arguments

Appellants’ (State of Haryana and PWD) Arguments:

• Failure to Prove Title: The plaintiffs did not produce any substantive evidence like sale deeds to prove their ownership. They only relied on revenue records (jamabandis), which are insufficient to establish title.
• Burden of Proof: The High Court incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto the defendants to prove who the real owner is. In a suit for possession, the plaintiff must prove their own title.
• Adverse Possession: The State has been in continuous possession since 1879. Although the State cannot claim adverse possession against a private individual, their long possession raises a presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiffs’ suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Necessity of Declaratory Relief: The plaintiffs should have filed a suit for declaration of title before seeking possession, especially when their ownership was in dispute.
• Conduct of the Plaintiffs: The First Appellate Court termed the plaintiffs “land grabbers” who manipulated revenue records. The High Court did not address these observations.

Respondents’ (Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar) Arguments:

• Admission of Plaintiffs’ Title: The appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs’ ownership in their written statement. By claiming adverse possession, they implicitly admitted the plaintiffs’ title as per Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession: The State cannot claim title through adverse possession against its own citizens. This is against the principles of a welfare State and undermines citizens’ constitutional rights.
• Permissive Possession: The State’s possession was permissive, not adverse. The Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80 indicates that the State’s possession was conditional, described as “Bikhar Bahali Kaza,” meaning till the existence of an orchard.
• Establishment of Ownership: The respondents established their ownership through continuous entries in revenue records (jamabandis) from 1904-05 to 2019-20. Plaintiff No. 1 had a registered sale deed dated 5th July 1960, and Plaintiff No. 2 had a sale deed dated 12th March 1973.
• Burden of Proof: Since the appellants did not deny the respondents’ title, the burden was on the appellants to prove that they had become owners by adverse possession.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court in favor of the plaintiffs. The key questions were:

1. Whether the State can claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens?
2. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact by the First Appellate Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section was considered to highlight the admissibility of revenue records as evidence of possession.
• Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule was considered to highlight that the appellants’ failure to specifically deny the respondents’ title in their written statement amounted to an admission of their title.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. [(2020) 2 SCC 569]*: The Supreme Court followed this judgment to hold that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that the State, as a welfare entity, cannot use adverse possession to claim the property of its citizens. The Court emphasized the need to protect citizens’ constitutional rights and maintain public trust in the government. The Court also noted the State’s failure to specifically deny the plaintiffs’ ownership, which was seen as an implicit admission of their title. The permissive nature of the State’s possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat, further weakened their claim of adverse possession.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title, noting that the plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence, including revenue records and sale deeds. The Court also emphasized that by claiming adverse possession, the State had implicitly admitted the plaintiffs’ title. The Court’s reasoning was based on legal precedents, constitutional principles, and the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court stated, “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 Court further added, “Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government.” The court also observed, “The appellants’ possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80 (Exhibit DW10/1), was permissive and conditional.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens.
• By claiming adverse possession, a party implicitly admits the title of the other party.
• Revenue records, along with sale deeds and mutation records, are admissible evidence to prove ownership.
• The State’s possession must be hostile, open, and continuous to claim adverse possession. Permissive possession does not suffice.
• The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession if the plaintiff has established ownership.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens. This reinforces the principle that the State’s role is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to encroach upon them. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. [(2020) 2 SCC 569] that the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, upholding the High Court’s decision that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting individual property rights and maintaining public trust in the government. This judgment clarifies that the State, as a welfare entity, cannot seize private land through adverse possession.

Category

Parent Category: Property Law
Child Category: Adverse Possession
Child Category: State and Property Rights
Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Order VIII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Parent Category: Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Child Category: Section 35, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Child Category: Section 110, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Parent Category: Limitation Act, 1963
Child Category: Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963

FAQ

Q: Can the government take my land by claiming they’ve been using it for a long time?
A: No, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government cannot claim your land through adverse possession. This means that just because they’ve been using your land for a long time, they don’t automatically become the owners.

Q: What is adverse possession?
A: Adverse possession is a legal concept where someone can claim ownership of land if they’ve been using it openly, continuously, and without the owner’s permission for a certain period. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot use this concept against its own citizens.

Q: What kind of documents can prove my ownership of land?
A: Documents like registered sale deeds, mutation records, and revenue records (jamabandis) can be used to prove your ownership of land.

Q: What should I do if the government is trying to claim my land?
A: If the government is trying to claim your land, you should seek legal advice immediately. You can use this Supreme Court judgment to argue that the government cannot claim your land through adverse possession.