Welfare State Cannot Be a Land Grabber - State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Against Its Own Citizens: Orissa High Court

“Plea of Adverse Possession Is Itself an Admission of Plaintiff’s Title and Land Identity” –  In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional land rights, the Orissa High Court in its judgment declared that the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession to usurp land belonging to its own citizens, and such a defence amounts to an implied admission of the land's identity and the plaintiff’s ownership. Justice A.C. Behera, allowing the appeal in part, reversed concurrent findings of the courts below and decreed the plaintiffs’ right, title, and interest over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575, directing the State to correct the Record of Rights (RoR) accordingly.

The Court condemned the State's attempt to retain private land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession, calling it "a constitutionally impermissible strategy unbecoming of a welfare government".

“Plea of Adverse Possession Presupposes Plaintiff’s Ownership” – High Court Calls Out State’s Legal Inconsistency

The Court sharply observed that once the State itself pleaded adverse possession, it effectively acknowledged both the plaintiff’s title and the land’s identity, thereby invalidating its own denial of those very facts.

Justice Behera wrote,

“The plea of adverse possession by the State over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 is an indirect but unequivocal admission of the plaintiffs’ ownership and the suit land’s identity. It is settled law that adverse possession cannot be claimed in abstract, without presupposing ownership in the other.”

Drawing from precedents such as Jagat Singh v. Srikishan Dass and Pappayammal v. Palanisamy, the Court emphasized that such a plea by the State defeats its own contention regarding lack of identification or ownership.

The Court held:

“The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the land and their ownership are not only perverse but legally untenable in view of the State’s own assertions.”

“Welfare State Cannot Be a Land Grabber” – High Court Says State Cannot Perfect Title Through Adverse Possession

Citing a series of authoritative decisions including State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated the constitutional position that the government cannot dispossess citizens by stealth under the garb of long-standing possession.

Justice Behera stated,

“If the protectors of citizens’ property become its grabbers, the very fabric of the rule of law is destroyed. The State, as a welfare institution, cannot invoke adverse possession to justify illegal encroachments upon citizen-owned land.”

He further noted,

“To permit the State to succeed in a claim of adverse possession over land it has forcibly fenced would be to reward illegality with title. Such conduct cannot receive judicial endorsement.”

The Court concluded that such actions would “undermine the Constitution, erode public trust, and embolden misuse of executive power over private property.”

“Communal Land Like Smasana Cannot Be Claimed Without Complying With Order I Rule 8 CPC” – Court Rejects Claim Over Cremation Ground for Non-Joinder

While the Court found in favour of the plaintiffs regarding Plot No.1575, it dismissed their claim over A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563, recorded as “Smasana” or cremation ground, citing non-compliance with mandatory procedural law under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Justice Behera noted:

“The Kisam of the suit land is ‘Smasana’, which by its very nature is communal land used by the village community at large. The plaintiffs, without instituting the suit in representative character or impleading the villagers of Attopur-Badapokharital, have violated the legal requirement.”

Relying on Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Stephen Issac v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that land used for public purposes such as cremation cannot be privately claimed unless due process involving affected communities is followed.

He wrote, “A Smasana is not private land to be acquired by stealth. It is sacred communal ground, and no court can declare individual ownership unless the village community is heard.”

“Concurrent Findings That Ignored Legal Admissions by State Are Perverse” – High Court Exercises Power Under Section 100 CPC

The High Court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, holding that the findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. Both courts had wrongly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and land identity, even though the State had acknowledged long-standing possession and attempted to justify it through adverse possession.

Justice Behera observed:

“The legal implications of the State’s plea were brushed aside. The lower courts misdirected themselves in law by ignoring that the State’s own defence had effectively admitted the very facts that the plaintiffs were allegedly unable to prove.”

Title Declared, RoR to be Corrected – Plaintiffs Succeed in Part

Allowing the second appeal in part, the Court issued a declaration of title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs regarding A.0.09 decimals in Hal Plot No.1575 and directed the State to remove its name from the RoR and enter the plaintiffs’ names instead.

The Court confirmed the dismissal of the suit concerning Hal Plot No.1563, given its communal nature and procedural non-compliance.

Justice Behera concluded: “The State shall have no right, title, or interest in A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575. The Record of Rights shall stand corrected accordingly, and the possession of the plaintiffs is hereby confirmed.”

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025