2002 Supreme(Bom) 803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil others .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. 1287 of 2002, decided on 7-8-2002.
Advocates appeared :
N.J. Patil, for petitioners.
Smt. G.P. Mulekar, A.G.P., for respondents.

Headnote:Adverse Possession - Permissive possession. - Permissive possession will always continue to be permissive until licensee asserts and proves the assertion of adverse possessio

       Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64 - Plea of adverse possession - If can be sustained in acquisition proceedings - Validity of withholding possession - Held - Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act it is clear that once land is acquired by government it vests in state free from all encumbrances - House of ex-Ruler - State acquired all properties also - Petitioners failed to establish right in the suit house - It was a permissive possession - They cannot insist plea of adverse possession. - Undisputedly, the land wherein the house in question exists was acquired by the State Government in the year 1986. Considering the provisions of law contained under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is abundantly clear that once the land is acquired by the Government it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Even if any person is left without payment of compensation to him towards his interest in the land, the only remedy for him would be either to seek compensation from the State Government or from other person who might have collected the compensation in relation to his interest in such land. But apart from that, no occupant of such land could continue to claim subsisting interest in the land so as to continue to occupy the same once the land vests in the Government pursuant to its acquisition. The house in question was admittedly belonging to the ex-Ruler. The properties wherein the house exist has already been acquired by the State. Apparently, all the things attached to the earth in or over the land acquired forming a part of the land which were belonging to the ex-Ruler stood acquired alongwith the land. As already seen, the petitioners have failed to establish any independent right or interest in or to the suit house. Being so, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the house in question, even though it was in permissive possession of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot insist to continue to occupy the suit house and have to deliver the possession thereof to the State Government.

       Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64 - Role of limitation in adverse possession - Possession of suit premises over statutory period is sufficient to successfully plead plea of adverse possession - Essential ingredients of adverse possession are actual and continuous possession by person intending to perfect his title to property by adverse possession - Enjoyment of property is essential mere possession for a long period even if for more than prescribed period would not be sufficient to mature title by adverse possession. - The possession of the property with the bona fide belief that the same belong to him would disclose absence of necessary animus for perfecting the title by adverse possession in relation to such property. Unless the enjoyment of the property is accompanied by adverse animus, mere possession for a long period, even over a statutory period, would not be sufficient to mature the title to the property by adverse possession. Certainly, these essential ingredients of adverse possession are to be established by the person claiming acquisition of title to a property by adverse possession. It is well said that permissive possession and hostile animal operate in conceptually different fields, and the permissive possession does not become adverse by a mere change in the metal attitude of the person in possession and it is for such person to prove from which date the permissive possession became hostile.

       Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64 - Adverse possession - Possession due to employment - Stayed for more than 12 years - Whether he acquired title by way of adverse possession - Can a permissive possession also become adverse possession - Held - Possession in question was a permissive possession - It is always a permissive possession - It is necessary to be objected otherwise it remains uncharged - Permissive possession and hostile animus operate in different fields - Permissive possession does not become adverse merely because of charge in attitude of person.

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 16 - Acquisition of property - Land vesting free of all encumbrances after acquisition - Legality of withholding possession - Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act clearly specifies that once land or property is acquired by Government it vests in state free from all encumbrances - Properties and belongings of house in possession of state - Continuation in property cannot be allowed to raise plea of adverse possession. - Undisputedly, the land wherein the house in question exists was acquired by the State Government in the year 1986. Considering the provisions of law contained under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is abundantly clear that once the land is acquired by the Government it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Even if any person is left without payment of compensation to him towards his interest in the land, the only remedy for him would be either to seek compensation from the State Government or from other person who might have collected the compensation in relation to his interest in such land. But apart from that, no occupant of such land could continue to claim subsisting interest in the land so as to continue to occupy the same once the land vest in the Government pursuant to its acquisition. The house in question was admittedly belonging to the ex-Ruler. The properties wherein the house exist has already been acquired by the State. Apparently, all the things attached to the earth in or over the land acquired forming a part of the land which were belonging to the ex-Ruler stood acquired alongwith the land. As already seen above, the petitioners has failed to establish any independent right or interest in or to the suit house. Being so, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the house in question even though it was in permissive possession of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot insist to continue to occupy the suit house and have to deliver the possession thereof to the State Government. Apparently, therefore, there was no, prima facie, case made out by the petitioners for grant of any injunctive relief in the matter. The trial Court having analysed the materials on record in detail and petitioners having failed to make out any case in support of their contention, and further no material having been placed by the petitioners before the lower appellate Court to justify their claim, no fault can be found with the impugned order dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners. In spite of law on the point being very clear, it is apparent that the petitioners have been illegally withholding the possession of the suit house and creating hurdles to the State Government in taking appropriate decision regarding development of the land which has been acquired for rehabilitation to flood affected people. In the circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed with cash.