To establish adverse possession, a claimant must demonstrate continuous, open, and hostile possession that explicitly denies the true owner's title, supported by clear and unequivocal evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Present second appeal filed by original plaintiff takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2024 passed by the District Judge-2, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No.2 of 2022 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Civil Judge S.D., Shrirampur in R.C.S. No.10 of 2015.

2. Mr. Rahul Tambe, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submit that the land survey no.20/2 admeasuring 9 acres 1 R situated at Umbargaon, Tq. Shrirampur (now block no.29) was originally owned by Bajirao Rakhma Kale and Makha Mukinda Kale. Plaintiff’s father was adjacent land holder in block no.28. Owners of land block no.29 had leased out the land to Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, Tilak Nagar. However, it remained uncultivated. The plaintiff’s father took over possession of 1 A 11 R portion from the land gat no.29 on 10.10.1955 and continued his open, uninterrupted and peaceful possession.

3. Block no.29 was declared as surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short the said act). The State Government took possession of it from sugar mills and allotted the same in favour of the defendant no.7 i.e. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation. However, father of the plaintiff continued in possession of the area to the extent of 1A 11 R without any obstruction even from defendant no.7. He developed the Gayran land by leveling and bunding, dug well of 40 x 40 feet, installed electric engine in the year 1968 and watered crops. He spend huge efforts and money in developing the land. Even, plaintiff’s father constructed a tenement. Till death of plaintiff’s father in the year 2000 he continued in possession. Thereafter, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Plaintiff came to know that defendants were intending to allot the land from block no.29 to original land lords. He made written communication as regards to his continuous possession for more than 30 years. The Deputy Collector, who is responsible for allotment of surplus land made inquiry through the Revenue Officers. Consequently, a report was submitted accepting possession of plaintiff over the suit property. Defendant no.2, in fact proposed to make allotment of land excluding the property in possession of plaintiff. However, defendant no.7 issued notice dated 26.5.2014 to plaintiff asking for removal of the encroachment from the suit land. Plaintiff asserted his adverse possession and consequently filed suit seeking relief of declaration of ownership based on adverse possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants. The defendants refuted plaintiff’s claim contending that block 29 admeasuring 9 A 1R is approved and proposed for allotment to original land lord and his legal heirs. However, it has been encroached by the plaintiff and he is liable to be evicted. Defendant no.7 also filed written statement raising various objections.

4. Trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of parties and concluded that plaintiff proved his adverse possession and perfected title over the suit land. Consequently, granted relief of perpetual injunction. However, appellate Court reversed the decree holding that possession of the plaintiff cannot be given status of adverse possession as there is no documentary evidence indicating long standing and peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit property.

5. Mr. Tambe, learned advocate appearing for the appellant invites attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the Trial Court and also copies of correspondence between the revenue officials. He would in