judgement
Subject : Property Law
In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by a landless tribal man who claimed title to government land through adverse possession.
The appellant, Ruga, had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent, the government, in relation to the agricultural land bearing Survey No.493/7 area 8.582 hectares situated at village Tukoganj, Tehsil Sarangpur, District Rajgarh (Biaora).
Ruga claimed that he and his ancestors had been in possession of the suit land since 1970 and that he had acquired title to the land through adverse possession.
However, the trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed Ruga's suit, holding that he had failed to prove that his possession was adequate in continuity, publicity, and extent.
The High Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts, holding that Ruga had failed to show that he had perfected his title to the land through adverse possession.
The Court noted that Ruga had admitted in his cross-examination that the suit land was never mutated in his name and that a case was registered against him in the Tehsil Court for encroaching on the government land.
The Court also noted that the Khasra Panchshala (land records) filed by Ruga did not support his claim of adverse possession.
The Court held that the impugned judgment passed by both the courts below are well reasoned and based upon the due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.
The findings recorded by both the courts below are concurrent findings of facts. The appellant has failed to show that how the findings of facts recorded by both the courts below are illegal, perverse and based on no evidence.
Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal.
The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, holding that it had no merit.
Adverse possession - Landless tribal - Title dispute - Government land - Khasra Panchshala - Concurrent findings of fact - Substantial question of law
#AdversePossession #LandlessTribal #TitleDispute
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
CJI Declares Sikkim India's First Paperless Judiciary
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.