State Cannot Assert Adverse Possession Over Private Property: Supreme Court
In State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Deceased) through Legal Representatives, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the State cannot claim adverse possession over private property. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale held that such claims undermine citizens' constitutional rights and erode trust in the government.
The case involved a 1981 civil suit by private parties alleging unauthorized occupation of their land (18 Biswas Pukhta) by Haryana Public Works Department. The State argued continuous possession since 1879-80, claiming title through adverse possession. While the trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, the appellate court reversed it. The Punjab and Haryana High Court restored the decree, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the State's adverse possession claim implicitly acknowledged the plaintiffs' title, further supported by revenue records, sale deeds, and mutation entries. It highlighted that while revenue records don't confer title, they serve as evidence of possession when corroborated.
Citing Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. (2020), the Court ruled that the State cannot appropriate private property via adverse possession. It also found that acts like erecting temporary structures and a boundary wall lacked the hostility and duration required for adverse possession. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the plaintiffs' ownership rights.