10 Aug 2023 9:35 AM GMT
The Supreme Court, while placing its reliance on the decision of State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (2000) 5 SCC 652, opined that when the disputed land, claimed by way of adverse possession, belongs to the government, the nature of enquiry by the Court must be more serious and effective.
“When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care, and circumspection as it may lead to Destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property.”
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol decided an appeal filed by the Government of Kerala challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a second appeal. In the present case, Court examined the stance of claimants seeking to be declared as owners of government land via a claim of adverse possession. The issue before the Court was whether the plaintiffs had perfected their title over the property, subject matter of dispute, by adverse possession.
Brief background
The subject matter was 30 cents of land in Kerala, stated to be Government land, over which one Joseph asserted title based on adverse possession since 1940. In 1983, the legal representatives of Joseph instituted a civil suit seeking injunction against the eviction proceedings initiated by the State. The District Court, in 1995, set aside the Trial Court's decree in state's appeal. In second appeal by the plaintiffs, the High Court restored the original decree.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Concerning the adverse possession, the Court, after citing its various judgments, observed the following principle:
“Possession must be open, clear, continuous, and hostile to the claim or possession of the other party; all three classic requirements must coexist- nec vi, i.e., adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e., adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and knowledge.”
The Court noted that the testimonies relied upon by the Plaintiffs “are not of such a nature to satisfy the requirement of a ‘more serious and effective’ enquiry.”
At this, the Court opined that merely statements of witnesses do not account for proper and concrete proof as such statements can be vague.
“Proper and concrete proof as required would need for the claimants to show some proof of possession, other than statements which may be vague. It is also clear from the above discussion that merely a long period of possession does not translate into the right of adverse possession. Surmises, conjectures, and approximations cannot serve the basis for taking away the right over land resting with the State and place the said bundle of rights in the hands of one who did not have any such rights", the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol stated.
In other words, person claiming adverse possession must establish the same through cogent evidence and mere vague assertions will not suffice. Apart from this, the Court also observed that it is an established law that for claiming the right of adverse possession mere possession of property for a long period is not sufficient. The same should also be accompanied by “animus possidendi - the intention to possess or in other words, the intention to dispossess the rightful owner". In absence of the same, the Court will not constitute the claim of adverse possession.
In view of the above observations, the Court, while declining the claimants' claim of adverse possession, held:
“Surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve the basis for taking away the right over land resting with the State and place the said bundle of rights in the hands of one who did not have any such rights.”
Case Title: Government of Kerala & Anr. V. Joseph and Others, Civil Appeal 3142 Of 2010
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621; 2023 INSC 693