Adverse possession claims over government properties classified as water bodies are unsustainable due to public trust doctrine and lack of hostile possession.

JUDGMENT :

The State of Tamil Nadu was the defendant in O.S No.237 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 7 herein for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit was decreed on 11.12.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Madurai. There was delay in filing the appeal. Hence, petition for condonation of delay was also filed. The delay was eventually condoned and the appeal was numbered as A.S.No.2 of 2016. During the intervening period, P.R.P Exports rep.by its Partner P.Palanisamy purchased the suit property under Ex.A79 dated 10.06.2005. Hence, the purchaser was impleaded as 8^th respondent in the first appeal. Before the first appellate court, additional evidence was adduced and Ex.A77 to Ex.A94 were marked. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 13.03.2020 confirming the decision of the trial Court. Challenging the same, this Second Appeal came to be filed.

2.There was delay of 340 days in filing the second appeal. To condone the same, CMP(MD)No.5444 of 2023 was filed. Notice was ordered by the learned Single Judge on 26.04.2023. On 11.09.2023, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge posted the said CMP along with few other matters before us. The original plaintiffs remained exparte even before the first appellate court. The purchaser alone contested the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent/purchaser, we condoned the delay on 25.09.2023. The second appeal was admitted on 25.09.2023 on the following substantial questions of law :

“a)Whether the continuation of the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court notwithstanding the dictum of the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of T.K. Shanmugam v State in WP No. 1295 of 2009 dated 27.11.2015 as reported in 2015 (2) CWC 849 laying down the dictum that no civil court can exercise jurisdiction regarding the question of encroachment in water bodies and that the persons can be directed to approach only the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was without jurisdiction ?

b) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the respondents derived the suit property by way of adverse possession is legally sustainable insofar as the the suit property classified as water body in the revenue records.

c) Whether the findings of the courts below that the suit property is under the possession and enjoyment of the said Govindasamy Naidu for 37 years is legally sustainable insofar the suit property classified as water storage area of Vandiyur Tank.

d) Whether reliance on Kist Receipts Exs.A8 to A33 and A49 to A59 is legally permissible as the same does not confer title on the respondents but on the other hand they are the penalty charges levied on the respondents for illegal occupation of the land classified as water body.”

3.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and allow the Second Appeal as prayed for.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent who is the sole contestant submitted that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. He has filed elaborate written arguments and took us through its contents. His core argument is that in the UDR A-Register, the suit property has been classified as “Vandiyur Kulam Neerpidi”. It only means that it is a water catchment area ; it does not mean that the suit property is a water body. In fact, he would claim that in the earlier records, the land was classified as “wet land”. The records filed before the Courts below show that the land revenue was collected from the plaintiffs' family since 1961 onwards. The