2011 (9) TMI 1182 - SC - Indian Laws

Landmark Ruling: Government Cannot Claim Land Through Adverse Possession Without Clear Continuous Possession Evidence

State of Haryana Versus Mukesh Kumar and Ors.

The SC rejected the State's adverse possession claim, affirming lower courts' decisions. The court found the State failed to prove continuous possession ... - Issues Involved:1. Adverse Possession by the State2. Validity of Sale Deed and Mutation3. Locus Standi and Cause of Action4. Ownership and Possession Rights5. Mis-joinder of Necessary Parties6. ReliefIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adverse Possession by the State:The central issue was whether the State, responsible for protecting life, liberty, and property, could claim ownership of land through adverse possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of adverse possession is perceived as dishonest and should not benefit the State. The Trial Court found that the Plaintiff (State) failed to prove continuous possession for 55 years and lacked documentary evidence, contradicting the revenue records showing the Defendants as owners. The Court cited S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina and Bhim Singh v. Zile Singh, holding that adverse possession must be continuous, public, and hostile, which the Plaintiff failed to establish.2. Validity of Sale Deed and Mutation:The Plaintiff sought to nullify a sale deed dated 26th March 1990 and mutation dated 22nd November 1990. The Trial Court ruled that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge these documents as it was neither the owner nor in possession of the property. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claim of adverse possession did not grant it the right to contest the validity of these transactions.3. Locus Standi and Cause of Action:The Trial Court held that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi and cause of action to file the suit, as it neither owned nor possessed the disputed property. Consequently, the Plaintiff could not challenge the sale deed, mutation, or the previous judgment and decree.4. Ownership and Possession Rights:The Trial Court determined that the Defendants were the rightful owners of the disputed property based on the sale deed and mutation. The Plaintiff's claim of adverse possession was rejected, and the Defendants were entitled to possession of the property. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous and hostile possession invalidated its claim.5. Mis-joinder of Necessary Parties:This issue was not pressed and was decided against the Defendants.6. Relief:The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit and decreed the Defendants' counterclaim, entitling them to possession of the disputed property. The Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, who criticized the State's conduct and imposed exemplary costs. The High Court upheld this decision, condemning the State's attempt to grab property under the guise of adverse possession.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition with costs, criticizing the State's repeated attempts to claim ownership through adverse possession. The Court called for a re-evaluation of the law on adverse possession, suggesting its abolition or substantial amendment to prevent misuse by government entities. The judgment emphasized the need for the State to protect citizens' property rights rather than infringe upon them.