Supreme Court Upholds Landowner’s Right to Possession in Encroachment Case: Baini Prasad vs. Durga Devi (2023) INSC 95 (02 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 02 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 95
Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Can a person who builds on someone else’s land claim protection from eviction based on the belief that the land was their own? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the rights of landowners against encroachers. The Court held that a person who encroaches on another’s land cannot claim protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or the principle of estoppel, and must restore possession of the land to the rightful owner. The judgment was authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice B.R. Gavai concurring.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over a piece of land in Himachal Pradesh. Durga Devi (the respondent) filed a suit against Baini Prasad (the original appellant) seeking possession of 11 Biswancies of land, which she claimed was encroached upon by him. She also sought the demolition of any structures built on the land and a permanent injunction to prevent further interference. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Durga Devi, ordering the demolition of the structures and the handover of the land. However, the First Appellate Court modified this decision, stating that Durga Devi was not entitled to recover possession of the land but was instead entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,500, along with interest at 12% per annum. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh then overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision, restoring the Trial Court’s order for demolition and handover of possession. The matter reached the Supreme Court of India through special leave appeals.

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. The First Appellate Court upheld the findings of ownership and encroachment but modified the decree, holding that Durga Devi was not entitled to recover possession of the land. Instead, she was awarded compensation. Durga Devi then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the modification of the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s original order for demolition and handover of possession. The High Court also dismissed the review petition filed by Baini Prasad.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section deals with improvements made by a bona fide holder under a defective title. It states, “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.”
• Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section codifies the principle of estoppel, which prevents a person from denying a representation they made to another person who relied on it to their detriment.

The Court also referred to the principle of acquiescence, which is an equitable doctrine. It applies when a party, having a right, stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, and then cannot later complain.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that Durga Devi did not object to the construction within a reasonable time and was therefore estopped from claiming possession of the land.
• They contended that Baini Prasad had constructed on the land under the bona fide belief that it was his own and therefore, the construction was protected under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• They relied on the principle of acquiescence, stating that Durga Devi’s silence during the construction implied her consent.
• They cited the case of Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, to argue that the absence of a specific issue on estoppel was not fatal to their case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that she was the rightful owner of the land and that the appellant had encroached upon it.
• She contended that she had objected to the construction by sending a telegraphic notice and filing a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner.
• She asserted that the appellant was not a transferee under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore could not claim its protection.
• She argued that the principle of estoppel did not apply because she had not made any representation to the appellant that she consented to the construction.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants attempted to use Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the principle of estoppel in a situation where they were clearly encroachers. The respondent’s argument was straightforward, focusing on her ownership and the appellant’s encroachment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following 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:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s order for demolition and handover of possession. The Court rejected the appellants’ arguments based on Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the principle of estoppel. The Court reasoned that:

The Court also considered how the authorities were viewed:

• 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*: These cases were followed to reiterate that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts should not be interfered with.
• Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884*: This case was considered but not applied, as the Court found that the facts of the present case did not support the application of the principle of estoppel.
• R.S. Madanappa v. Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812*: This case was used to explain the object of estoppel and why it did not apply in this case.
• Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee, AIR 2014 SC 1304*: This case was used to explain the conditions for invoking estoppel, which were not met in this case.
• B.L. Shreedhar v. K.M. Munnireddy, AIR 2003 SC 578*: This case was used to clarify the nature of estoppel as a rule of evidence and a rule creating or defeating rights.
• Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301*: This case was used to distinguish between acquiescence and delay and laches.
• Abdul Kader v. Upendra, 40 C.W.N 1370*: This case was used 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 used to support the view that a trespasser should not be allowed to purchase another’s property against their will.
• Bodi Reddy v. Appu Goundan, (1971) ILR 2 Madras 155*: This case was used to support the view that in a suit for recovery of possession filed within the period of limitation, the doctrine of laches or acquiescence has no place to defeat the plaintiff’s right.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the original appellant was an encroacher who had acted without any bona fide belief that the land was his own. The Court emphasized that the respondent was the rightful owner of the land and had taken steps to object to the construction. The Court also emphasized that the object of estoppel is to secure justice between the parties and not to protect an encroacher. The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the application of legal principles to the facts of the case, with a strong emphasis on the protection of property rights. The Court also considered the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the questions of ownership and encroachment.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the First Appellate Court’s decision to award compensation instead of ordering demolition and handover of possession was correct. However, the Court rejected this interpretation because it would have allowed a trespasser to purchase another’s property against their will. The Court emphasized that the respondent was the rightful owner of the land and had taken steps to object to the construction. Therefore, she was entitled to recover possession of her land.

The Court’s decision was clear: a person who encroaches on another’s land cannot claim protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or the principle of estoppel. The rightful owner is entitled to recover possession of their land, even if the encroacher has made improvements on it. The Court stated, “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.”

The Court also stated, “In the proven circumstances that the original appellant was not having title over the property, that the respondent herein is the owner of the land in question, that the concurrent finding is that the original appellant was the encroacher and further that objection was raised by the respondent herein against the construction she should not have shut out by the rule of acquiescence or by the rule of estoppel for having made a representation to make the original appellant to believe that she had consented for the construction.”

The Court further stated, “in a case where the owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his land from the encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by the opposite party ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

• An encroacher cannot claim protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• The principle of estoppel does not apply if the rightful owner has not made any representation that they consented to the encroachment.
• Mere silence or inaction cannot be construed as a representation for the purpose of estoppel.
• A landowner is entitled to recover possession of their land from an encroacher, even if the encroacher has made improvements on it.
• Courts should ordinarily grant an injunction to remove encroachments and restore possession to the rightful owner.

This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting property rights and clarifies that encroachers cannot benefit from their wrongful actions. It also highlights the need for landowners to take prompt action against encroachments.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an encroacher cannot claim protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or the principle of estoppel, and must restore possession of the land to the rightful owner. This judgment reiterates the established principles of property law and clarifies the circumstances in which the principle of estoppel and Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, do not apply. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Baini Prasad vs. Durga Devi reaffirms the rights of landowners against encroachers. The Court held that an encroacher cannot claim protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or the principle of estoppel, and must restore possession of the land to the rightful owner. This judgment serves as a reminder that property rights are paramount and that encroachers cannot benefit from their wrongful actions. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to restore the Trial Court’s order for demolition and handover of possession, ensuring that the rightful owner’s rights were protected.

Category

Parent category: Property Law

• Child category: Encroachment
• Child category: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Child category: Section 51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Child category: Estoppel
• Child category: Acquiescence

Parent category: Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Child category: Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Parent category: Constitution of India

• Child category: Article 136, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is encroachment?

A: Encroachment is when someone builds on or occupies another person’s land without their permission.

Q: What is Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

A: Section 51 protects a “transferee” who makes improvements on a property believing in good faith that they own it. It allows them to claim compensation for the improvements if they are later evicted.

Q: What is the principle of estoppel?

A: Estoppel prevents someone from denying a representation they made to another person who relied on it to their detriment.

Q: What is acquiescence?

A: Acquiescence is when someone stands by and sees another dealing with their right in a manner inconsistent with that right, and then cannot later complain.

Q: Can an encroacher claim protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

A: No, an encroacher cannot claim protection under Section 51 because they are not a “transferee” who believed in good faith that they owned the land.

Q: If someone encroaches on my land, what should I do?

A: You should take prompt action, such as sending a notice to the encroacher and filing a complaint with the appropriate authorities. You can also file a suit to recover possession of your land.

Q: Does silence amount to consent for the purpose of estoppel?

A: No, mere silence or inaction cannot be construed as a representation for the purpose of estoppel. There must be some conduct or representation that indicates consent.