Adverse possession against citizens' property requires clear hostile possession; mere long possession by the State was insufficient.

The Court reaffirmed that adverse possession requires specific pleading and proof of open, continuous and hostile possession from a clearly identifiable starting point. Mere long possession is insufficient, and revenue entries in the defendants' name did not cure the State's failure to establish the essential ingredients. It further noted that government instrumentalities, including the police, should not invoke adverse possession to claim citizens' property because the doctrine operates harshly against true owners. On these facts, the claim of title by adverse possession was rejected and the special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State could claim ownership over citizens' property by adverse possession and seek declaratory relief on that basis.

Analysis: The suit and the appeals proceeded on the premise that the State, through its police machinery, had remained in open and adverse possession long enough to perfect title. The record showed that the revenue entries stood in the defendants' name and that the State had failed to establish the essential ingredients of adverse possession, including clear pleading of the point of time when possession became hostile. The Court reiterated that adverse possession must be open, continuous, and hostile, and that long possession by itself is not enough. The judgment further expressed that government instrumentalities, particularly the police, ought not to invoke adverse possession to take citizens' property, and that the doctrine operates harshly against true owners.

Conclusion: The claim of title by adverse possession was rejected, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant to adverse possession must specifically plead and prove open, continuous, and hostile possession from a clearly identifiable starting point, and mere long possession does not mature into title.

---