State can't claim adverse possession over citizens' private property: SC

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale dismissed an appeal of the Haryana government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order restoring the possession of land to a private party

Supreme Court, SC
The top court said the revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties. | Photo: Shutterstock
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Nov 19 2024 | 11:13 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale dismissed an appeal of the Haryana government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order restoring the possession of land to a private party in which the state's Public Works Department (PWD) has staked its claim.

"We find no merit in the appellants' contentions. The high court's judgement is based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence. The plaintiffs (private party) have established their ownership of the suit property, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens," it said.

The dispute pertains to land in Bahadurgarh at Haryana located on the National Highway, which connects Delhi and Bahadurgarh.

The bench relied on the entries of the revenue records which established the ownership of the land in favour of the private party.

"Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government. Therefore, the appellants' (state government) plea of adverse possession is untenable in law," the bench said.

The top court said the revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

"While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence," it said.

Haryana and its PWD had earlier claimed that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in question for decades and they had become owners by way of adverse possession.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme Courtpropertystate

First Published: Nov 19 2024 | 11:13 PM IST

Next Story