New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the State cannot claim ownership of private land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession, holding that such a claim is inconsistent with the constitutional obligations of a welfare State.
Justice Ramesh Kumari directed the Haryana government to compensate landowners whose 7 kanals of agricultural land in Fatehabad district had been occupied for an irrigation distributary since 1960 without formal acquisition or payment of compensation.
Background of the Case
The dispute involved agricultural land in Fatehabad through which the Banmandori distributary, an irrigation channel, has passed for more than six decades.
According to the case records, the distributary was initially constructed as an earthen channel in 1960 and was later converted into a cement-lined canal by the state government. However, the government neither acquired the land through legal procedures nor compensated the landowners.
The affected landowners subsequently approached a civil court seeking restoration of possession of their property.
State’s Defence
The Haryana government argued that it had acquired ownership through the doctrine of adverse possession, contending that the distributary had remained on the land for decades without objection from the owners.
The State also maintained that the suit was barred by limitation because it had been filed more than 44 years after the distributary was constructed.
Both the trial court and the first appellate court accepted the government’s arguments, ruling that the claim was time-barred and that ownership had passed to the State through adverse possession.
The landowners then challenged those decisions before the High Court.
High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claim
Justice Ramesh Kumari overturned the decisions of the lower courts, observing that a government cannot occupy citizens’ property unlawfully and later seek ownership by claiming adverse possession.
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments affirming that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution can only be taken away through due process established by law.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana vs. Amin Lal, the High Court observed that “the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.”
The judgment further stated that the government cannot “become a squatter over the lawful possessory and ownership rights of its citizens.” If private land is required for a public purpose, the State must acquire it in accordance with the law and pay fair compensation.
Compensation Ordered
The High Court also held that no limitation period applies to a suit seeking possession based on ownership when the State is in illegal possession of private property.
However, considering that the Banmandori distributary has been serving the irrigation needs of numerous farmers since 1960, the court observed that dismantling or relocating the canal would not be practical.
Instead of directing the return of the land, the court ordered the Haryana government to compensate the landowners by paying the fair market value of the occupied property.
