Adverse Possession Must Be Peaceful, Open, and Continuous: PH High Court in Land Dispute

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the trial court's judgment affirming the plaintiffs' title over disputed land in two civil suits, rejecting the defendants' claims of adverse possession. Justice Deepak Gupta emphasized the consistency of plaintiffs' title and the insufficiency of defendants' evidence to prove adverse possession.

In two civil suits, Mukhtiar Singh and others (plaintiffs) sought possession of land in Village Adhoya, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, claiming unauthorized possession by the defendants. Civil Suit No. 756 of 1985 involved Kartar Singh and Harnam Singh over 56 kanals 14 marlas of land, while Civil Suit No. 806 of 1985 involved Shingara Singh over 8 kanals of land. Defendants contested the claims, asserting ownership through adverse possession.

The court confirmed that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners based on mutation records and prior judgments that allocated land from Gram Panchayat to village proprietors. Justice Deepak Gupta noted that the defendants' admission of adverse possession inherently acknowledged plaintiffs' title.

The trial court and the First Appellate Court found the defendants' adverse possession claims unsupported by evidence. Despite the defendants' assertions, records showed that their possession was unauthorized since 1983-84, which did not satisfy the legal criteria for adverse possession.

Justice Gupta referenced multiple legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India, stating, "Adverse possession is hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner and must be peaceful, open, and continuous."

Justice Gupta highlighted, "The First Appellate Court could not travel beyond the pleadings of the parties. Even evidence led beyond the pleadings could not be appreciated in that direction."

The High Court's decision reinstates the trial court's judgment, affirming plaintiffs' ownership and rejecting defendants' adverse possession claims. This ruling underscores the judiciary's adherence to established legal principles regarding property disputes and adverse possession, ensuring rightful ownership and possession based on credible evidence.

Date of Decision:02 July 2024