Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SREE SUDHA, J.
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District – Appellant
Versus
M. Kashinath and Others – Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 400 of 2011
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - Land Encroachment Act, Sections 3, 34, 35, 38 - The court discussed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, the acquisition of land for laying outer ring road, and the issuance of patta passbook for the entire extent of the land. The court found that the possession of the plaintiffs was peaceful, open, and to the knowledge of the true owner for a much longer period than the statutory period of 30 years. The court also considered the government's actions and inactions regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration by adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, as legal heirs of M. Mallappa, claimed ownership and possession of the land in question through adverse possession. They contended that their grand-father had acquired the land more than 70 years back and had been in continuous possession of the property. The defendant disputed the plaintiffs' claim, alleging that the land was government land and that the plaintiffs were encroachers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the plaintiffs over the land was peaceful, open, and to the knowledge of the true owner for a much longer period than the statutory period of 30 years. The court also considered the government's actions and inactions regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration by adverse possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs had established adverse possession over the land in question and whether they were entitled to a declaration of ownership and possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the possession of the plaintiffs over the land was peaceful, open, and to the knowledge of the true owner for a much longer period than the statutory period of 30 years. The court also considered the government's actions and inactions regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration by adverse possession.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 29.10.2010 in O.S. No. 848 of 2002. There were no costs awarded.
JUDGMENT :
P. SREE SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 in O.S. No. 848 of 2002, passed by the learned V - Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S. No. 848 of 2002 against the appellant/defendant for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding the land in Sy. No. 8 admeasuring Acs. 15-12 gts. situated at Himyathsagar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The trial Court got examined PWs. 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A59 on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant got examined DW-1 and marked Exs.B1 to B18 on his behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, defendant therein preferred the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit stating that respondents/defendants are the owners and are in possession of the suit schedule property, without any evidence for such declaration and also contended that trial Court failed to see the penalty imposed under Section 3 of the Land Encroachment Act for illegal possession by one Mallappa i.e. grandfather of respondents No. 1 and 5. The trial Court failed to see that the subject land was a Government land as per Khasra pahani prepared during the year 1954-55, in which the said land was mentioned as Sarkari Poramboke. He further contended that the trial Court failed to see that injunction cannot be granted to an illegal possessor. The trial Court failed to see that amount paid to the respondents for the acquisition of land made for the purpose of laying outer ring road was only Ex-gratia to the encroachers, but not compensation. The possession of the respondents/plaintiffs was unauthorized and illegal and they failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.
5. The parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
6. Originally, one Mallappa/grand-father of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 5 acquired the land bearing Sy. No. 8, admeasuring Acs. 15-12 gts. situated at Himayathsagar Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for more than 70 years and enjoyed the possession of the property during his lifetime and he died in the year 1981 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. He is the grand-father of plaintiffs No. 1 and 5, great grandfather of plaintiffs No. 3 and father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 and thus they derived right of ownership and possession through succession and continuing enjoying the suit schedule property. The ancestor of the plaintiffs acquired the suit lands more than 70 years back and had been enjoying the same by making them cultivable by spending huge sums and he was also paying the land revenue to the Government and thus he became the owner of the suit lands during his life time and after his demise plaintiffs are enjoying the property as owners. At the time of construction of Himayathnagar Tank, many lands of Ryots of Himayathsagar village have been sub-merged and the new village of Himayathsagar has been established to rehabilitate the ryots of the village, they were allotted Government land and allowed to cultivate them at free of cost under the then Government scheme and policy. The ryots of the village occupied different lands and began to cultivate the same under the said scheme and the ancestor of the plaintiffs M.Mallappa had acquired the suit lands and thus he and his family is in continuous possession of the suit lands from more than 70 years.
7. The subordinates of the defendant under wrong impression levied penalty against the ancestor of the plaintiffs and he in tu
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to claim title by adverse possession, the plaintiff must prove uninterrupted and continuous possession over the land for the statutory period.....
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
The burden of proof in title suits rests with the plaintiffs to establish a superior title; revenue entries are insufficient to confer ownership.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
