Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Smadh Sarbhanji – Petitioner
Versus
Range Forest Officer, Seonsar
R.S.A.No. 2040 of 1992
Decided On : 27-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Shvetanshu Goel Adv., Mr. Shrey Goel Adv., Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj AAG, Haryana
The State cannot claim ownership through adverse possession against citizens, as it violates constitutional property rights under Article 300A.
Headnote:(A) Adverse Possession - The doctrine of adverse possession requires proof of open, hostile, and undisturbed possession for a statutory period. The State cannot claim ownership through adverse possession against its citizens. (Paras 3.3, 3.8, 3.9)
(B) Property Rights - The right to property is a constitutional and human right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which protects citizens from deprivation without legal sanction. (Paras 12.2, 12.3)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a religious institution, sought possession of land claimed to be owned based on revenue records, while the defendants asserted possession since 1958, supported by tree plantation evidence from the Forest Department.
Findings of Court:
The State failed to prove adverse possession, and the trial Court's decree in favor of the plaintiff was restored.
Issues: The court addressed whether the State could claim ownership through adverse possession and if tree plantation constituted sufficient evidence of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere tree plantation does not establish animus possidendi necessary for adverse possession, and the State cannot invoke this doctrine against citizens.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. Factual Background:-
1.1 The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn has reversed the judgment of the trial Court.
1.2 In the considered opinion of this Court, the following two issues require adjudication:-
i. Whether the Government is entitled to claim acquisition of ownership based on doctrine of adverse possession?
ii. Whether plantation of trees on a waste/un-cultivable land is sufficient to establish animus possidendi, which is sine qua non for invoking the doctrine of adverse possession?
1.3 The plaintiff, which is a religious institution, claiming to be the owner filed a suit for possession of 19 kanal and 6 marlas land based on jamabandi for the year 1985-1986. It was claimed that defendants are threatening to cut and remove the trees standing on the land.
1.4 While contesting, the defendants asserted their possession since 1958, whereas, as per the revenue record and in year 1962-1963, the Forest Department planted Shisham and Eucalyptus trees on the land in dispute. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings culled out the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP
2.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present suit? OPD
3. Whether no notice has been issued upon the defendants before filing the present suit? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is false and frivolous? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the defendants have become owner of suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD
8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD
9. Relief.”
2. Evidence produced by the respective parties:-
2.1 The plaintiff in its evidence examined its mohatmim/Mahant and produced copies of the revenue record.
2.2 On the other hand, the State of Haryana examined, Sh. Sumer Chand, Patwari, produced the revenue record and reports Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3, to prove plantation of trees in the year 1962-1963.
2.3 The trial Court found that as per jamabandi for the year 1975- 1976 (Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6), the suit land was recorded to be owned by ‘jumla malkan’ (belong to the Proprietors of the Village) whereas its possession was with Sh. Shital Singh etc. Subsequently, as per jamabandi for the year 1980- 1981, the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff. The trial Court further found that the plantation is only on 30 acres out of total land measuring 75 acres comprised in Rectangle No.201, 202, 203. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff (appellant herein).
2.4 The First Appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court while heavily relying upon inspection reports prepared by the Forest Department Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 to prove that the plantation was carried out by the Forest Department in the year 1962-1963, when the total land was ‘Banjar’ (waste land).
3. Analysis and Discussion:-
3.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paper book along with requisitioned scanned copy of the digital record of the Courts below.
3.2 For proving acquisition of title by way of adverse possession, the party, who asserts such right, is required to prove the date on which he came into possession, the nature of his possession, whether factum of possession was known to other party, how long his possession continued and whether his possession was open, hostile and undisturbed. The reliance in this regard can be placed upon Saroop Singh Vs. Banto, AIR 2005 (SC) 4407.
3.3. In Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others, (2004) 10 SCC 65, the Supreme Court held that every possession is not adverse possession in law. Before invoking the doctrine of adverse possession, the Courts are required to examine
