Adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence, especially in suits against the Government, where possession for a period exceeding thirty years must be established.

1. Heard the counsel for the appellants.

2. The appellants are original plaintiffs.

3. The appellants have lost the suit before both the courts below.

4. The suit being Title Suit No.47 of 2006 has been instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land.

5. It appears that present suit is for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.

6. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are in possession over the suit land since 1968 and further Ext.1, which is a record of right, which has been prepared in the year 1969 wherein it has been mentioned that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land since 1967.

7. The State Government has neither appeared nor filed written statement before the court below.

8. The trial court has framed issues on its own regarding implication of adverse possession as claimed by the plaintiffs. The finding has been recorded by the trial court in para-6 of the judgment, which is quoted herein below:-

“6. Admitted facts of this case is that in the present record of rights (Ext.1) the suit property stand recorded in the name of State of Bihar, now Jharkhand and the possession of the plaintiff is shown in the remark column (as illegal possess) on plot no.130 from the year 1967. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, he has not pleaded derivative title over the suit property, rather his claim is based on reclamation of land attached to the suit property and it has been stated that on 14.01.1965, the plaintiff cleared the bushes and shrubs on the said land and developed it for growing crops and vegetable and the process of conversion of land took about two years to make it fit for cultivation.”

9. On the basis of above finding, suit has been dismissed by the trial court.

10. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed Title Appeal No.01 of 2015. The appellate court has approved the finding recorded by the trial court and accordingly, decree of dismissal has been confirmed.

11. Thus, there is concurrent finding by both the courts below, rejecting the plea of adverse possession of the plaintiffs.

12. Counsel for the State has appeared and submitted that the suit is otherwise also not maintainable as the plaintiffs have failed to prove right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession, which can be a defence and cannot be a cause of action for filing the suit.

13. Counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in the case of R. Hanumaiah & Anr. v. Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka, Revenue Department & ors. (2010)5 SCC 203, paras-19 to 23, which are quoted hereinbelow:

“19. Suits for declaration of title against the Government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the Government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the Government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the Government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the Government, is not available to any person or individual. The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession has to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against the Government. This follows from Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by the Government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason