In a significant legal ruling in the matter of The State of Haryana and Another vs Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through his Lrs. & Others, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD) challenging the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had restored a trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs, Shri Amin Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar, in a property dispute over a piece of land situated in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The State had claimed ownership of the land based on adverse possession, but the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, emphasizing the principles of property rights and the State’s role as a welfare entity.
Background of the Dispute:
The dispute revolves around a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas, located on both sides of National Highway No. 10 in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The plaintiffs, Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession of the land in March 1981, claiming ownership based on revenue records and asserting that the land had been illegally occupied by the State and PWD since around 1977. Despite multiple requests for the land to be vacated, the defendants—representing the State and PWD—failed to comply.
In their defense, the appellants argued that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land since 1879, making their possession adverse to the plaintiffs. They contended that this long-standing possession had transformed into ownership by adverse possession, a legal doctrine that allows a person to gain title over land after continuous, hostile, and uninterrupted possession for a specific period, typically 12 years.
The Trial Court’s Decision:
The Trial Court, in May 1986, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendants had not proven their claim of adverse possession. The Court emphasized that the actions taken by the defendants, such as placing bitumen drums and constructing a boundary wall in 1980, were insufficient to establish adverse possession. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had the right to file the suit, as they were the recorded owners of the land in the revenue records.
First Appellate Court’s Judgment:
The defendants appealed the decision, and the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's ruling in October 1987. The Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish ownership through sale deeds or other title documents. It ruled that the defendants had been in continuous possession of the land since 1879, and their possession had been open, continuous, and adverse. Thus, the Appellate Court concluded that the defendants had perfected their title over the land by adverse possession, and the plaintiffs had attempted to manipulate the revenue records to claim ownership.
High Court’s Ruling:
Dissatisfied with the First Appellate Court's decision, the plaintiffs filed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) before the High Court in 1987. The High Court, after examining the case, reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs. It held that by asserting a claim of adverse possession, the State had implicitly acknowledged the plaintiffs' title to the land. Furthermore, the High Court ruled that the State could not claim adverse possession against its own citizens, as this would be in violation of constitutional principles and the concept of a welfare State.
The High Court also emphasized that the defendants had failed to specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership in their written statement, which, according to the Civil Procedure Code, amounted to an admission of ownership. The possession of the defendants was deemed to be permissive, not adverse, as evidenced by the 1879-80 records, which described the State’s possession as temporary and conditional.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
The appellants, the State of Haryana and PWD, then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's ruling. They argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove ownership and that the burden of proof had been wrongly placed on the defendants. The appellants also reiterated their claim of adverse possession based on long and continuous possession since 1879.
The Supreme Court, after carefully reviewing the case, rejected the appellants' arguments. It found that the appellants had not specifically denied the plaintiffs' ownership in their written statement, which led to the presumption of the plaintiffs' title. The Court emphasized that revenue records, while not conclusive proof of ownership, were admissible evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim, particularly when corroborated by other documents such as sale deeds and mutation records.
The Court also ruled that the State could not claim ownership of land through adverse possession against its own citizens. It cited a previous judgment, Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which explicitly held that the State cannot acquire title over private property through adverse possession. The Supreme Court further noted that the State’s possession of the land was permissive, as evidenced by the 1879-80 revenue records, and that acts like placing bitumen drums and constructing temporary structures did not amount to adverse possession.
The Court also rejected the appellants’ argument regarding the burden of proof, affirming that the plaintiffs had established their title to the land. The judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiffs and misappreciated the evidence, was rightly set aside by the High Court.
Conclusion:
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the principles of property ownership, emphasizing that the State cannot claim adverse possession over land belonging to its citizens. The judgment reinforced the importance of specific denial of ownership in legal pleadings and affirmed the validity of revenue records and other documents in establishing ownership. By dismissing the appeal, the Court upheld the plaintiffs’ rightful ownership of the disputed land and set a significant precedent regarding the State's rights over private property.
Limitation Act, 1963
