1. Suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over suit land based on adverse possession against Government. (Para 20000242080001 , 20000242080002 , 20000242080003 , 20000242080004 , 20000242080005 , 20000242080006 , 20000242080007 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
Rajendra Prasad Pandey and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum - Respondent
S.A. No.107 of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2018
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, A.C. to (G.A.)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, A.C. to (G.A.)
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.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Declaration of Right, Title, Interest - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 112 - Suits against Government - Title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years - Adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence - Adverse possession as a defence against the State
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, original plaintiffs, lost the suit for declaration of right, title, interest, and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The suit was based on adverse possession, with the plaintiffs claiming possession since 1968. The State Government did not appear or file a written statement before the court below.
Finding of the Court:
Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected the plea of adverse possession of the plaintiffs, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The counsel for the State argued that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs failed to prove right, title, and interest over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs could establish adverse possession as a cause of action for filing the suit and whether the suit was maintainable against the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in R. Hanumaiah & Anr. v. Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka, Revenue Department & ors. (2010)5 SCC 203, which highlighted the special features relating to government properties and the requirement to establish adverse possession for a period exceeding thirty years in suits against the Government. The court also considered the judgment in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014)1 SCC 669, which emphasized that adverse possession can only be used as a defence and not as a cause of action for seeking a declaration of ownership.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed as there was no substantial question of law involved.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
adverse possession
- adverse possession against government (Para 20000242080012)
- adverse possession as defence (Para 20000242080011, 20000242080013, 20000242080014)
-
declaration of title
- declaration against government (Para 20000242080012)
-
adverse possession
-
practice and procedure
-
civil suits
- suits for declaration (Para 20000242080003, 20000242080004)
- suits against government (Para 20000242080006, 20000242080012)
-
appeals
- second appeal (Para 20000242080015)
-
civil suits
-
administrative law
-
government property
- presumption in favor of government (Para 20000242080012)
-
government property
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs claim adverse possession matured into title; State argues adverse possession is a defence not a cause of action and suit against Government requires 30 years. (Para 20000242080011 , 20000242080012 , 20000242080013 )
3. Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law; adverse possession cannot be a cause of action for declaration of title against Government. (Para 20000242080015 )
4. Can adverse possession be pleaded as a cause of action in a suit for declaration of title against the Government?
No. Adverse possession can only be used as a defence in eviction proceedings against the possessor, not as a standalone cause of action for seeking a declaration of title against the Government. (Para 20000242080011 , 20000242080012 , 20000242080013 , 20000242080014 )
5. What are the requirements for establishing adverse possession against the Government?
More than thirty years of actual, open, visible, hostile, continuous possession with the knowledge of the Government is required to convert possession into title against the Government. (Para 20000242080007 , 20000242080012 )
6. Can a plaintiff obtain a declaration that adverse possession has matured into ownership?
No. Even if adverse possession is established, it cannot form the basis for a declaration of ownership; it can only serve as a shield or defence when proceedings are filed against the possessor. (Para 20000242080013 , 20000242080014 )
ORDER :
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
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
