Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ramesh Kumari, J
Ranbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Haryana State – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 4001 of 2006

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kshitij Sharma, Tammna Banwala
For the Respondents: Rahul Gupta

The State, as a welfare entity, cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to perfect title over a citizen's private property; any state-led dispossession for public interest must follow due process of law and include the payment of reasonable compensation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India — Article 300-A — Right to property — State’s power of eminent domain — State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law — State cannot perfect title by adverse possession to grab property of its own citizens. (Paras 21-23)

(B) Adverse Possession — Limitation Act — Article 65 — State cannot invoke the plea of adverse possession as a welfare State to defeat a rightful owner’s claim based on title — State’s illegal occupation of private land without compensation constitutes a violation of constitutional and human rights. (Paras 18, 22-23)

Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed ownership of land measuring 119 Kanals, alleging that 7 Kanals were encroached upon by the State for the construction and cementing of a distributary without acquisition or payment of compensation. The State contended that the canal existed since 1960 and the State had acquired ownership through adverse possession due to the long-standing open and hostile occupancy.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the State, acting as a welfare State, cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to deprive citizens of their property. The dispossession of the plaintiffs without due process and compensation violated Article 300-A. The Court set aside the lower courts' findings regarding adverse possession and limitation.

Issues: 1. Whether the State can acquire property for public use without compensation. 2. Whether the State can claim title by adverse possession. 3. Whether the suit for possession is barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Right to property is a constitutional and human right. The State cannot be a 'squatter' on private land; it must adhere to 'due process' and provide compensation for any land taken for public purposes, even long after the initial encroachment.

Result: Appeal partly allowed. The State is directed to pay compensation at fair market price treating the matter as a 'deemed acquisition'.

Table of Content
1. dispute over possession of land used as a distributary canal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. appellate review of adverse possession and limitation claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. state cannot use adverse possession against citizens for property. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. ordering deemed acquisition and fair compensation for encroached land. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

****

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. This appeal in hand arises from the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2006 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Fatehabad whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants herein (original plaintiffs) came to be dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 316-C of 2004 seeking possession of the suit property.

2. The facts giving rise to this regular second appeal are as under:-

The claim of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners in possession of land measuring 119 Kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 16//24/1 (013), 32//1(6-18), 2(5-16), 3(5-0), 4(5-0), 7(8-0), 8(8-0), 9(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8-0), 13(8-0), 14(8-0), 33//4(8-0), 5(7-13), 6(8-0), 7(8-0), Kittas 17, situated in village Banmandori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, as per Jamabandi Ex.P2 for the year 2000-2001. The Banmandori Distributary passes through a part of this land and is under the control of defendant/respondent No.2. Initially, this distributary was kacha but subsequently it had been cemented in Khasra Nos. 16//24/2, 33//4, 5, 32//1,2,3,4, measuring 7 Kanals owned by the plaintiffs and the said act was done forcibly and illegally. The property was never acquired by the defendants and the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs got the property demarcated and it was found vide demarcation report Ex.P5 submitted by Pardeep Kumar, Field Kanungo, PW2 that the defendants are in illegal possession over this property. The plaintiffs were never paid any compensation by the defendants for taking possession of this land. Inspite of service of notice Ex.P3 vide postal receipt Ex.P4, the defendants failed to deliver the possession to the plaintiffs which necessitated the filing of the suit.

3. Defendants-respondents in their written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary objections regarding its maintainability and that the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit and they were estopped from filing the suit by their own acts and conduct. The case of the defendants is that the distributary was constructed in the presence of all the shareholders. At the time of cementing the distributary, none of the plaintiffs or anyone else raised any objection. The plaintiffs and other shareholders are beneficiaries as their land is being irrigated through the said distributary for more than 50 years. This fact was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The distributary was in existence prior to the consolidation in the year 1960. The distributary had been cemented in the year 1981-82 and again 2-3 years ago, its level was raised up to one foot. No other alterations were ever made. The earth work was done on the old embankment and no additional construction was raised. The defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession as their possession was hostile and without any payment of charges and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and without interruption. These facts were concealed by the plaintiffs and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

4. No replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiffs.

5. Learned trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 31.01.2005:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property as prayed, if so its effect? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the defendants can be restrained from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHRamesh Kumari, JRanbir Singh – AppellantVersusHaryana State – RespondentRegular Second Appeal No. 4001 of 2006

The State, as a welfare entity, cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to perfect title over a citizen's private property; any state-led dispossession for public interest must follow due process of law and include the payment of reasonable compensation.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ramesh Kumari, J
Ranbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Haryana State – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 4001 of 2006