Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Adverse Possession - Continuous, And Hostile Possession, Accompanied By Animus Possidendi - Claim Denied By Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


August 9, 2023 - In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a claim of adverse possession made by the respondents over government-owned land. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, highlighted the necessity of establishing clear, continuous, and hostile possession, accompanied by animus possidendi, for adverse possession claims, especially concerning government property.

”The burden of proof once shifted, it was for the claimants to prove their possession to be openly hostile to the rights of the government.”

The court emphasized that mere long-term possession is insufficient to substantiate a claim of adverse possession. “Surmises, conjectures, and approximations cannot serve as a basis for transferring ownership of state land to one who has no such rights,” the bench stated. The court also stressed the importance of providing concrete proof beyond vague assertions. 

The judgment observed that a plea of adverse possession must be specific and cannot be introduced for the first time during the appellate stage. The court also underscored the contradictory nature of claiming independent title and adverse possession simultaneously. 

Moreover, the court clarified that a welfare state cannot invoke adverse possession to claim land owned by its citizens. “The State cannot claim the land of its citizens by way of adverse possession as it is a welfare State,” the court noted. 

This verdict holds significance for cases involving adverse possession claims, particularly when government property is concerned. The court’s ruling reaffirms the importance of providing clear and compelling evidence to establish adverse possession claims, especially in cases involving public land.

This judgment reaffirms the judicial stance on adverse possession, reinforcing the need for solid and concrete evidence to substantiate such claims.

Date of Decision: August 9, 2023                      

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR.  VS JOSEPH AND OTHERS               

       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/09-Aug-2023_Govt_Kerala_Vs_Joseph.pdf"]

Latest Legal News