JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. People are often astonished to learn that a trespasser may take the title of a building or land from the true owner in certain conditions and such theft is even authorized by law. The theory of adverse possession is also perceived by the general public as a dishonest way to obtain title to property. Property right advocates argue that mistakes by landowners or negligence on their part should never transfer their property rights to a wrongdoer, who never paid valuable consideration for such an interest.

2. The government itself may acquire land by adverse possession. Fairness dictates and commands that if the government can acquire title to private land through adverse possession, it should be able to lose title under the same circumstances.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the State of Haryana. We do not deem it appropriate to financially burden the respondents by issuing notice in this Special Leave Petition. A very vital question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the State, which is in charge of protection of life, liberty and property of the people can be permitted to grab the land and property of its own citizens under the banner of the plea of adverse possession?

4. Brief facts, relevant to dispose of this Special Leave Petition are recapitulated as under: The State of Haryana had filed a Civil Suit through the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, seeking a relief of declaration to the effect that it has acquired the rights of ownership by way of adverse possession over land measuring 8 biswas comprising khewat no. 34, khata no. 56, khasra no. 3673/452 situated in the revenue estate of Hidayatpur Chhavni, Haryana. The other prayer in the suit was that the sale deed dated 26th March, 1990, mutation no. 3690 dated 22nd November, 1990 as well as judgment and decree dated 19th May, 1992, passed in Civil Suit No. 368 dated 9 th March, 1991 are liable to be set aside. As a consequential relief, it was also prayed that the defendants be perpetually restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) over the suit land. For the sake of convenience we are referring the petitioner as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.

5. In the written statement, the defendants raised a number of preliminary objections pertaining to estoppel, cause of action and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff ever remained in possession of the suit property for the last 55 years. It was submitted that the disputed property was still lying vacant. However, the plaintiff recently occupied it by using force and thereafter have also raised a boundary wall of police line. It was denied in the written statement that the plaintiff acquired right of ownership by way of adverse possession qua property in question. The defendants prayed for dismissal of suit and by way of a counter claim also prayed for a decree for possession qua suit property be passed.

6. The Trial Court framed the following Issues in the suit.

1. Whether plaintiffs have become owner of disputed property by way of adverse possession? OPP

2. Whether sale deed 26.3.1990 and mutation no. 3690 dated 22.11.90 are null and void as alleged? OPP

3. Whether judgment and decree dated 19.05.92 passed in civil suit no. 368 dated 9.3.91 is liable to be set aside alleged? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPP

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis- joinder of necessary parties? OPP

8. Whether defendants no. 1 to 4 are rightful owners of disputed property on the basis of impugned sale deed dated 23.6.1990 registered on 3.7.1990? OPP

9. Whether defendants are entitled for possession of disputed property? OPP

10. Relief.

7. Issue No. 1 which relat