Supreme Court Upholds Landowner’s Right to Possession in Encroachment Case: Baini Prasad vs. Durga Devi (2023)

Date of the Judgment: February 2, 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No.6182-6183 of 2009
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a person who encroaches on another’s land claim protection against eviction by citing improvements made on the land? The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Baini Prasad vs. Durga Devi, addressed this critical question regarding property rights and the limits of equity. The Court examined whether the principle of estoppel or Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could protect an encroacher from eviction. This judgment clarifies the rights of landowners and the responsibilities of those who build on land that does not belong to them. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Durga Devi (the respondent) filed a suit against Baini Prasad (the original appellant) seeking possession of 11 Biswancies of land, which she owned, and the demolition of structures he had built on it. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Durga Devi, ordering the demolition and handover of the encroached land. However, the First Appellate Court modified this decision, stating that Durga Devi was not entitled to recover possession but should receive compensation instead. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s order. Baini Prasad then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of Durga Devi, ordering the demolition of the structures and the handover of the land. Baini Prasad appealed this decision, and the First Appellate Court upheld the findings on ownership and encroachment but modified the decree. The First Appellate Court, relying on the principle of acquiescence, ordered Baini Prasad to pay compensation to Durga Devi instead of handing over the land. Durga Devi then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s original order. Baini Prasad’s review petition was also dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, Baini Prasad appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with improvements made by bona fide holders under defective titles. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states:

“51. Improvements made by bona fide holders under defective titles. —When the transferee of immoveable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he is absolutely entitled thereto, and he is subsequently evicted there from by any person having a better title, the transferee has a right to require the person causing the eviction either to have the value of the improvement estimated and paid or secured to the transferee, or to sell his interest in the property to the transferee at the then market value thereof irrespective of the value of such improvement. The amount to be paid or secured in respect of such improvement shall be the estimated value thereof at the time of the eviction. When, under the circumstances aforesaid, the transferee has planted or sown on the property crops which are growing when he is evicted therefrom, he is entitled to such crops and to free ingress and egress to gather and carry them.”

The Court also considered Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which pertains to the principle of estoppel. The Court further explored the concept of acquiescence, which is an equitable doctrine that applies when a party with a right stands by and sees another party acting inconsistently with that right.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (Baini Prasad):

• Baini Prasad argued that Durga Devi did not object to the construction within a reasonable time and was therefore estopped from claiming recovery of the land.
• He contended that he had constructed on the land under the bona fide belief that it was his own and that his construction was protected under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• Baini Prasad claimed that the plea of estoppel was clearly made out from the pleadings of the parties, their conduct, oral and documentary evidence.
• He argued that the encroachment was not intentional and the area involved was small.

Respondent’s Arguments (Durga Devi):

• Durga Devi argued that she was the rightful owner of the land.
• She contended that Baini Prasad had encroached upon her land and constructed without any legal basis.
• She asserted that she had objected to the construction by Baini Prasad through a telegraphic notice and a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner.
• Durga Devi argued that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the reversal by the High Court of the modification effected by the First Appellate Court warrants interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Janak Dulari Devi and Anr. v. Kapildeo Rai and Anr. [(2011) 6 SCC 555] – The Supreme Court cited this case to support the principle that concurrent findings of fact do not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• Ram Prakash Sharma v. Babulal [(2011) 6 SCC 449] – This case was also cited to reinforce the principle of non-interference with concurrent findings of fact.
• Ghisalal v. Dhapubai [(2011) 2 SCC 298] – This case was cited for the same principle as above.
• Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao [AIR 1963 SC 884] – This case was cited to support the view that the absence of an issue is not fatal if the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence.
• R.S. Madanappa v. Chandramma [AIR 1965 SC 1812] – This case was cited to explain the object of estoppel, which is to prevent fraud and secure justice.
• Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee [AIR 2014 SC 1304] – This case was cited to explain the four salient conditions to be satisfied before invoking the rule of estoppel.
• B.L. Shreedhar v. K.M. Munnireddy [AIR 2003 SC 578] – This case was cited to explain that estoppel may be described both as a rule of evidence and as a rule creating or defeating rights.
• Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.J. James [(2022) 2 SCC 301] – This case was cited to clarify the distinction between “acquiescence” and “delay and laches”.
• Abdul Kader v. Upendra [40 C.W.N 1370] – This case was cited to explain that mere silence or inaction cannot be construed as a representation for the purpose of estoppel.
• N.C. Subbayya v. Pattan Abdulla Khan [(1956) 69 LW (Andhra) 52] – This case was cited to support the view that in cases of trespass, the Court should ordinarily grant an injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment.
• Bodi Reddy v. Appu Goundan [(1971) ILR 2 Madras 155] – This case was cited to support the view that the doctrine of laches or acquiescence has no place to defeat the right of the plaintiff to obtain the relief on his establishing his title in a suit for recovery of possession filed within the period of limitation.

Statutes:

• Section 51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – The Court analyzed this section to determine if Baini Prasad could claim protection for the improvements made on the land.
• Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The Court considered this section in relation to the principle of estoppel.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Janak Dulari Devi and Anr. v. Kapildeo Rai and Anr. [(2011) 6 SCC 555]*, Ram Prakash Sharma v. Babulal [(2011) 6 SCC 449]*, and Ghisalal v. Dhapubai [(2011) 2 SCC 298]* to reinforce the principle that concurrent findings of fact do not warrant interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• The Court cited Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao [AIR 1963 SC 884]* to support the view that the absence of an issue is not fatal if the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case.
• The Court referred to R.S. Madanappa v. Chandramma [AIR 1965 SC 1812]* to explain the object of estoppel as preventing fraud and securing justice.
• The Court cited Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee [AIR 2014 SC 1304]* to explain the four salient conditions to be satisfied before invoking the rule of estoppel.
• The Court relied on B.L. Shreedhar v. K.M. Munnireddy [AIR 2003 SC 578]* to explain that estoppel can be both a rule of evidence and a rule creating or defeating rights.
• The Court used Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.J. James [(2022) 2 SCC 301]* to clarify the distinction between “acquiescence” and “delay and laches”.
• The Court referred to Abdul Kader v. Upendra [40 C.W.N 1370]* to explain that mere silence or inaction cannot be construed as a representation for the purpose of estoppel.
• The Court cited N.C. Subbayya v. Pattan Abdulla Khan [(1956) 69 LW (Andhra) 52]* to support the view that in cases of trespass, the Court should ordinarily grant an injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment.
• The Court cited Bodi Reddy v. Appu Goundan [(1971) ILR 2 Madras 155]* to support the view that the doctrine of laches or acquiescence has no place to defeat the right of the plaintiff to obtain the relief on his establishing his title in a suit for recovery of possession filed within the period of limitation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Concurrent Findings of Fact: The Court emphasized that the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court had all agreed on the facts of ownership and encroachment. This consistency in findings weighed heavily in the Supreme Court’s decision not to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.
• Lack of Bona Fides: The Court found that Baini Prasad had not acted in good faith while constructing on Durga Devi’s land. He was not a “transferee” as per Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and had encroached without a valid claim of title.
• Timely Objection: The Court noted that Durga Devi had objected to the construction by sending a telegraphic notice and filing a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner. This demonstrated that she did not acquiesce to the encroachment.
• Legal Principles: The Court reiterated that equity follows the law and that estoppel cannot be used to defeat the law. The Court also emphasized that a trespasser should not be allowed to purchase another person’s property against their will.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that Baini Prasad should be compensated for the improvements made on the land. However, this was rejected because Baini Prasad was not a bona fide transferee and had encroached upon the land without any legal basis. The Court reasoned that allowing compensation would be tantamount to allowing a trespasser to purchase another person’s property against their will.

The Court concluded that the High Court was correct in setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s order. The Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact on ownership and encroachment did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In the said circumstances, the mere delay in instituting the suit, especially when it was filed well within the period of limitation prescribed, should not have been held as amounting to acquiescence.”
• “The object of estoppel, as held in Madanappa’s case, would be defeated if the said illegality is recognized and allowance is granted therefor.”
• “To say that a small strip of building site could thus be appropriated by a trespasser would be to admit a rule of law which can be applied limitlessly. In cases of trespass, the Court should ordinarily grant an injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment and restore possession of the vacant site to the plaintiff.”

Key Takeaways

• A person who encroaches on another’s land cannot claim protection against eviction by citing improvements made on the land unless they are a bona fide transferee.
• The principle of estoppel cannot be used to defeat the law or to allow a trespasser to purchase another person’s property against their will.
• Landowners who object to encroachment in a timely manner are entitled to seek recovery of possession of their land.
• Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally not interfered with by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, other than dismissing the appeals.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person who encroaches on another’s land cannot claim protection against eviction by citing improvements made on the land unless they are a bona fide transferee. This case reinforces the principle that equity follows the law and that estoppel cannot be used to defeat the law or to allow a trespasser to purchase another person’s property against their will. The decision clarifies that landowners who object to encroachment in a timely manner are entitled to seek recovery of possession of their land. There is no change in the previous position of law, as the court upheld the established principles of property law and equity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Baini Prasad, upholding the High Court’s decision to restore the Trial Court’s order for demolition and handover of the encroached land. The Court reaffirmed the principle that landowners have the right to recover possession of their land from encroachers, especially when the encroachment is not based on a bona fide belief and the landowner has objected to the construction in a timely manner.