The State of Haryana raised a claim of adverse possession against a property of private individuals.
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 unauthorizedly 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.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the first appellate court overturned the decree and dismissed the suit. In the second appeal the Hon’ble High Court restored the decree, and hence the State has gone to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that by asserting adverse possession, the State implicitly acknowledged the title of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the revenue record entries, sale deeds, and mutation entries provided further evidence of the plaintiffs’ title.
“The plaintiffs relied on jamabandi entries to establish their ownership. The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Exhibit P1) records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half share. Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.
The respondents have produced copies of registered sale deeds and mutation records before this Court, which were part of the additional documents filed with the counter affidavit” the Court observed.
The Supreme Court has referred in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P(2020) 2 SCC 569 and held that,
“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.”
That apart the Apex court has discussed the constitutional rights of citizen with respect to the private property.
“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’ plea of adverse possession is untenable in law.”
Party
The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives: Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale: Advocate: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee for the State; Senior Advocate Santhosh Paul for the respondents.
