Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Central Coalfields Limited - Appellant
Versus
Most. Rijhani Devi W/o Late Suresh Mahto - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 412 of 2020
Decided On : 21-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.K. Das
For the Respondents: Swami Dayanand, Yogesh Modi, Atanu Banerjee
Adverse possession can be claimed simultaneously with title, but the nature of land and public use must be critically examined.
Headnote:
(A) Adverse Possession - Legal principles regarding adverse possession discussed, including the ability to claim title and adverse possession simultaneously - Reference to case law establishing that adverse possession can be claimed as both shield and sword. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9)
(B) Nature of Land - Court addressed the classification of land as Sarna and implications for adverse possession claims, emphasizing that the nature of land may change over time. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellants claim adverse possession of land recorded as Sarna since 1932, despite the private respondents asserting it is for public use. The appellants argue that the land has not been used as Sarna and has remained in their possession.
Findings of Court:
The court highlighted the legal complexities surrounding adverse possession and the nature of land, suggesting that the appellants' claim may not align with established legal principles.
Issues: The main issues included whether adverse possession can be claimed alongside title and the implications of land being classified as Sarna.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that adverse possession is heritable and can be claimed alongside title, but the nature of the land and its use must be considered.
Result: Judgment reserved for further consideration.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Submission of behalf of the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the substantial question no. 2 has submitted that neither the learned Trial Court nor the Appellate Court framed specific issue in connection with adverse possession, although the plaintiffs /his predecessor in interest have been in possession of the property since 1932 and as per the records of right the possession of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was recorded as forceful possession in the remarks column i.e. shown as Gusban Kabja i.e. forceful possession of one Murat Sahu since three years before the final publication in the records of right in 1935 and the nature of the property was recorded as Sarna. The learned counsel submits that the property was never used for the purposes of Sarna and therefore the nature of the property was recorded as its nature stood at that point of time and therefore the nature of property with passage of time changed, as the same was in possession of the plaintiffs/their predecessor in interest.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 and has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has wrongly observed that that the plea of adverse possession can be raised only as a shield and not as sword. He has referred to paragraph no. 11 of the aforesaid judgment which in turn refers to the earlier judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in ( 1981) 2 SCC 103 ( Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi ). The learned counsel has also submitted that the judgment referred to in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment was relating to the municipality yet the decree was passed in favour of the person in possession by considering adverse possession. However, the learned counsel has fairly referred to paragraph 63 of the said judgement to submit that in case of properties dedicated to public cause, there can be no accrual of right by adverse possession. He submits that the said observation would not come in the way of the appellants as the property remained in possession of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs since 1932 and was never used as Sarna since then and therefore the same cannot be said to be of property of public use. He has submitted that it has come in evidence that the land adjacent to the property claimed by the appellants was being used as Sarna land.
Submission on behalf of the private respondents (representing the village community)
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents on the other hand opposed the prayer and has submitted that with respect to substantial question of law no.1 , the judgments which have been referred to therein were either related to claim of the concerned person on the basis of settlement or Hukumnama and one or the other cases were relating to cancellation of such settlement. He has submitted that the plaintiffs in the present case have stated in the plaint itself that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs were in forceful possession of the land which was recorded as Sarna land. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the judgments which have been relied upon by the appellants do not apply in their favour. He has also submitted that the property was recorded as Sarna land which is for the use of the community at large and is used as place of worship for the Tribal people.
6. With respect to the substantial question of law no. 2, the learned counsel has submitted that the law is not well settled that plea of adverse possession can be claimed as a matter of shield as well as sword by virtue of the judgment referred to in substantial question of law, but the claim of adverse possession of the appellants has been rejected not only on the said ground but also on the ground that
