JUDGMENT

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

Lis herein is over the rival claims of ownership of suit land viz. right of appellants set up on the basis of possession vis-a-vis the rights/title of the plaintiffs-respondents, as mentioned in the revenue record entries.

Adjudication of the dispute inter-alia pivots on the following important questions of law :-

i). Whether State can turn from protector to predator in relation to the property of a citizen and set up a plea of ownership by adverse possession?

ii). Whether the constitutional guarantee of a citizen's right under Article 14 to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws per se prevents the 'State' from asserting or claiming ownership by adverse possession?

iii).If it is established that an owner has been out of possession of the property and another individual or the State entity has been in its hostile possession continuously, openly, notoriously and to owner's knowledge for the statutory period of 12 years, will owner's rights stand extinguished and vest the de jure ownership in the former?

2. This common judgement/order will dispose of three cases, as they arise out of the same suit proceedings i.e. i). Regular Second appeal bearing RSA No.693 of 2001; ii). Civil Revision petition bearing CR No.1062 of 2001; iii). Civil Revision petition bearing CR No.1063 of 2001.

3. For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court. Adverting first to the main case i.e. second appeal. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, erstwhile PSEB-Punjab State Electricity Board (contesting defendant) is in appeal before this Court to defend possession of suit land using the claim/shield of acquiring title by adverse possession. Assailed herein are learned trial Court judgement and decree dated 16.11.1999 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for possession and learned First Appellate Court judgement and decree dated 09.02.2001, reaffirming the judgement passed by the trial court.

4. Prior to delving into the facts and debating the merits of the current case, let us begin by addressing the aforementioned three questions of law, which are of generic nature. In pursuit thereof, it may well be worthwhile to also first deal with the fundamentals of common law concept of adverse possession, since it is not statutorily defined, it's very genesis, modern day perspective and continued existence, despite severe criticism, and only then claim of the State to seek benefit thereof, on parity with any other non-state entity or individual, can be appreciated. The legal concept of adverse possession, which grants ownership based on long-term possession, has ancient origins and can be found in diverse civilisations and legal systems throughout history. Its earliest foundations can be seen in Roman law, where the doctrine of usucapion enabled individuals to obtain property ownership by maintaining uninterrupted possession for a specified period. This principle of acquiring rights through extended possession laid the groundwork for the development of the modern concept of adverse possession. Although this legal concept is also stated to predate even the Roman civilisation, dating back to the reign of King Hammurabi of Babylon around 1754 BCE during the Babylonian civilisation that flourished in Mesopotamia, located in present-day Iraq,