https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282361 Unauthorised occupation of Government land did not support a claim of title by adverse possession where the evidence was insufficient to show that the suit lands formed part of the appellants' holdings or that possession continued for the statutory period. The claim for compensation for improvements and trees also failed because such rights had to be asserted before eviction, and the principle applicable to a bona fide occupant under a claim of right did not extend to eviction from Government poramboke land. Limitation was treated as not defeating the challenge, but the decree upholding eviction and rejecting compensation was affirmed overall. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:04:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282361 Unauthorised occupation of Government land did not support a claim of title by adverse possession where the evidence was insufficient to show that the suit lands formed part of the appellants' holdings or that possession continued for the statutory period. The claim for compensation for improvements and trees also failed because such rights had to be asserted before eviction, and the principle applicable to a bona fide occupant under a claim of right did not extend to eviction from Government poramboke land. Limitation was treated as not defeating the challenge, but the decree upholding eviction and rejecting compensation was affirmed overall. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282361