Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale held that plea of adverse possession cannot be raised by the State against private citizens.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of Haryana v. Amit Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.

What was the Background of State of Haryana v. Amit Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs Case?

• The dispute pertains to a piece of land in Haryana.
• The original plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of suit property before the Court of Sub-judge 1^st class.
• It was the claim of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to the land on the basis of the revenue records and alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the land.
• The defendants (State of Haryana) in their written statement asserted that they were in adverse possession of the land and hence had become owner of the land.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
• The judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by the First Appellate Court.
• However, the High Court allowed the second appeal setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by the decision the appellants have preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• One of the first points that the Court pointed out in this case was that there was no specific denial of the plea of ownership of the plaintiff.
• The Court held that the appellants in their written statement did not specifically deny the ownership of the plaintiff and instead they relied on the plea of adverse possession.
• As per Order VIII Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) allegations not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted.
• Thus, by asserting adverse possession the appellants have impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiff.
• Further, the Court held that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of it’s own citizens.
• The Court further observed that allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government
• Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period.
  • The Court observed that the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility and the requisite duration in the present case.
• Thus, the Court held that the plaintiffs have established their ownership of the suit property and the State cannot claim adverse possession against it’s own citizens.

What is Adverse Possession?

Meaning:

• Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it.
• Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA)
  • Section 27 is an exception to the general principle of law of limitation
  • If a person fails to file a suit for recovery of possession within the specified time period, their right to recover possession or ownership of the property is extinguished.
• Article 65, Schedule I of LA:
  • Imposes a 12-year limitation period for suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title.

History:

• The concept of adverse possession was born in England.
• The doctrine was designed to prevent legal disputes over property rights that were time consuming and costly.
• It was also created to prevent waste of land by forcing the owners to monitor their property or suffer the consequence of losing the title.

Elements for proving adverse possession:

• Actual
  • Physical occupation or use of the property as a true owner would.
• Open
  • Visible and apparent possession, not hidden or secretive.
• Notorious
  • Widely known in the community, such that others would recognize the trespasser as the apparent owner.
• Hostile
  • Possession without the true owner's permission, infringing on their rights.
• Exclusive
  • Sole control by the trespasser, excluding the true owner and others.
• Continuous
  • Uninterrupted possession for the full statutory period (e.g., 12 years for private land, 30 years for government land).

What is Public Property and Private Property?

• Public Property
  • Ownership: Owned collectively by the public, typically managed by the government or public authorities.
  • Purpose: Exists to serve the needs of society as a whole (e.g., parks, roads, schools, libraries).
  • Access: Accessible to the general public, often free or for a nominal fee.
  • Usage: Designed for communal use, and individuals cannot claim exclusive rights over it.
  • Examples: Public transportation, government buildings, community parks, and public utilities.
• Private Property
  • Ownership: Owned by individuals, businesses, or private entities.
  • Purpose: Serves the interests of the owner(s), who have the right to control, use, or dispose of it as they wish.
  • Access: Restricted to the owner or those granted permission.
  • Usage: Used for personal, commercial, or organizational purposes, often with exclusive rights.
  • Examples: Homes, personal vehicles, private businesses, and intellectual property.

What are the Rights of the State over Private Property of Citizens?

• Following are the rights of the State over the private property of citizens:
  • Right to Acquire Private Property (Eminent Domain)
    • The state has the power to acquire private property for public purposes such as infrastructure projects, urban development, or industrial projects.
    • Legal Framework:
    • Governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.
    • Compensation must be provided to the property owner at a fair market value.
    • Rehabilitation and resettlement are mandated for those displaced.
  • Restrictions on use of property
    • The state can regulate the use of private property to ensure it aligns with public welfare.
    • Examples:
      • Zoning laws restricting land use for commercial, residential, or agricultural purposes.
      • Environmental laws preventing harmful activities on private land.
  • Right to Tax Private Property
    • The state can levy taxes on private property, such as property tax, wealth tax (abolished in 2015), and stamp duty on property transactions.
  • Regulation for social Justice
    • The state can impose regulations on private property to promote equitable distribution of resources.
    • Example: Land ceiling laws in some states to limit the amount of land owned by an individual or entity.
  • Eviction or Acquisition for Public Welfare
    • In cases of emergency (e.g., natural disasters, public safety concerns), the state can temporarily acquire or restrict access to private property.
  • Prohibition of Illegal use or misuse
    • The state has the authority to intervene if private property is used for illegal activities, such as smuggling or harboring criminals. In extreme cases, the property can be seized.
  • No right of Adverse Possession
    • In the case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) the Court held that the State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years.
    • It was held that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.