SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.372 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents:Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate vice C Mr. Parv Sharma, Advocate

Adverse possession can be inherited, and Civil Courts have jurisdiction to amend revenue records despite jurisdiction exclusions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Land Revenue Act - Section 171 - Adverse possession - Plaintiff claimed title through adverse possession over government land, which was affirmed by the lower courts after 30 years of peaceful possession - Court found the claim valid and ruled that adverse possession is inheritable, supported by Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 18-20, 26-29)

(B) Jurisdiction - The Civil Court has jurisdiction to rectify revenue records under Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, despite the exclusion noted in Section 171 where specific rights are denied. (Paras 21-25)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought her name to be reflected in the revenue records as the owner of land occupied since 1963, following her husband's passing, who had established adverse possession. Defendant claimed the land was government property. The lower courts held that the plaintiff's possession matured into ownership through adverse possession.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the finding of adverse possession and the right to change ownership records in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues: The major issue was whether adverse possession could be inherited and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction over revenue-related matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that adverse possession confers inheritable rights and that the claimants could seek corrections in the revenue record under specified sections of the law.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

State has preferred this appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) against judgment and decree dated 12.10.2015 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 23/13 of 2015, titled State of HP vs. Sukhan Devi, whereby judgment and decree dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur HP in Civil Suit No. 120/1 of 2009 titled Sukhan Devi vs. State of HP, has been affirmed.

2 For convenience, parties herein-after shall be referred as per their status in the suit i.e. plaintiff and defendant/State respectively.

3 Case of plaintiff is that her husband Gurdass had occupied the land of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 13.1.1963 i.e. from the date of her marriage and plaintiff and her husband had constructed a residential house thereon in village Manwa and they lived in thPe said residential house. Name of her husband Gurdass was also incorporated in the column of possession over the suit land since 1963 onwards as evident from jamabandi for the year 1963-64, till filin g of the suit.

4 Further case of plaintiff is that opossession of husband of plaintiff had matured into title of the suit land on 13.1.1993 after 30 years of the adverse possession, which remained peaceful, continuous without any interruption and obstruction from any corner and to the best of knowledge of the State ofo HP, through its Revenue Agency.

5 AccordiCng to plaintiff, she and her husband were illiterate and therefore, they could not take steps for change of revenue entries in the column of ownership. Her husband expired on 18.6.2008 and thereafter, plaintiff is occupying, using and enjoying the suit property and she has iacquired all rights, title and interest in the suit land as exclusive owner and therefore, revenue entries showing contrary are wrong and illegal and not binding on plaintiff and are liable to be corrected by entering the name of plaintiff in revenue record as exclusive owner in possession of suit land along with house/structure raised thereon wherein plaintiff is residing since 1963 after her marriage as during lifetime of her husband, she was residing with her husband and thereafter, she is living in the said house.

6 It is the case of plaintiff that she came to know about non- entering of her name including the name of her husband as exPclusive owner in revenue record with respect to suit property in 2009 when she approached the Patwari for getting jamabandi of suit land for raising loan from the Bank.

7 Further case of plaintiff is that doefendant through Revenue Agency wanted to oust her forcibly from the suit property and therefore, she approached the Court by filing the suit for declaration that she had become owner in possession by way of adverse possession of house existing over the suit lando w.e.f. 13.1.1993 and also for decree directing the respondent to Center her name in the column of ownership and possession in place of her husband and for further decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff as well as interfering in and changing the nature of suit land by iitself or through its agents, servants or representatives in any manner and alternatively, for possession.

8 In written statement filed on behalf of State, it was contended that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit in view of provisions of Section 171 of HP. Land Revenue Act. However, it was admitted that plaintiff was widow of Gurdass son of Santa who had occupied 5 biswas of Government land in Mauja Manwa by constructing house thereon, which was the Government land, since 1963. It was further admitted that as per Roznamcha Entries since 1961 to 1963 no Missal regarding the encroachment of land was prepared against the husband of plaintiff. P

9 It was contended on behalf of defendant/State that husband of plaintiff had been shown in possession of suit land in column of possession in jamaban

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top