Aastha Pareek
On November 19, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the government cannot claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale, who emphasised the incompatibility of adverse possession claims with the State’s role as a protector of citizens’ rights. The Court clarified that invoking adverse possession by a governmental body to dispossess its citizens contradicts constitutional values and public trust doctrine.
The bench observed that the doctrine of adverse possession, rooted in extinguishing the rights of property owners due to their prolonged inaction, cannot be used by a state entity against its citizens. He stated that adverse possession fundamentally applies to disputes between private individuals and is an exception to the general rule of protecting property rights. Justice Varale reinforced that public institutions are bound by fiduciary duties, making it unacceptable for them to act as aggressors against individual rights.
The Court drew upon established principles of adverse possession, requiring a claimant to prove uninterrupted, open, and hostile possession over the land for at least 12 years to the knowledge of the rightful owner. It emphasized that adverse possession is a legal defense rather than an inherent right and cannot be weaponized by state authorities against citizens. This judgment aligns with precedents, including State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and ors. SLP (civil) no. 28034/2011, where the Supreme Court highlighted the irrationality of the adverse possession doctrine in favoring wrongful possession over rightful ownership.
The ruling has reaffirmed the sanctity of property rights enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution, stressing that no individual should be dispossessed without the authority of law. This case underlines the Court’s commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from the misuse of archaic legal doctrines by governmental authorities.
Case Name:- The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives
Case Number:- Arising out of SLP (C) No.25213 of 2024
Bench:- Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale.
Click here to access the order.