Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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