The State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens, and mere possession without hostility does not establish ownership.

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 31st January 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 3818 of 1987. The High Court allowed the regular second appeal filed by the respondents herein (original plaintiffs), setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the Signature Not Verified High Court's decision, the appellants (original Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2024.11.19 Reason:

defendants), namely the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD), have preferred this appeal.

3. The facts of the case leading up to the present appeal are as follows:

3.1 The dispute pertains to a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas Pukhta comprised in Khasra No. 2348 (0-10 Biswas) and Khasra No. 2458 (0-8 Biswas), situated within the revenue estate of Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The land is located on both sides of National Highway No. 10, which connects Delhi and Bahadurgarh.

3.2. On 28th March 1981, the original plaintiffs, namely, Shri Amin Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession of the suit property before the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bahadurgarh. They claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records and alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the land approximately three and a half years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs contended that despite repeated requests and a legal notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , the defendants failed to vacate the land.

3.3. The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested the suit by filing a written statement dated 17th September, 1985. They raised preliminary objections, asserting that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1879-80. They claimed that their possession was open, hostile, and adverse to the plaintiffs, and as such, they had become owners by way of adverse possession. The defendants also contended that the land had been used as a store by the PWD and its predecessor entities, including the District Board and Zila Parishad, for over a century.

3.4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following main issues:

“A. Whether the State of Haryana has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession?

B. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?”

3.5 The plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and produced revenue records, including copies of jamabandis (Exhibits P1 to P9). The defendants examined ten witnesses and produced various documents, including revenue records dating back to 1879-80 (Exhibits D1 to D22).

3.6. On 2nd May 1986, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. It held that the defendants had failed to prove that they had become owners by adverse possession. Mere placement of bitumen drums and construction of a boundary wall in 1980 did not constitute adverse possession. The plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit, as they were recorded as owners in the jamabandis. The defendants' possession, if any, was permissive and not hostile.

3.7. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the evidence, allowed the appeal on 8th October 1987 and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The Appellate Court held that:

• The plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership, as they did not produce the sale deeds or mutation records establishing their title.

• The jamabandi entries in favor of the plaintiffs were doubtful and appeared to be manipulated.

• The defendants and their predecessors had been in continuous possession of the suit land since 1879-80.

• The defendants' possession was open, continuous, and adverse, thereby perfecting their title by adverse possession.

• The plaintiffs were attempti