Adverse Possession, Real Estate and Property : SC Explains the Principles of Law

Adverse Possession, Real Estate and Property : SC Explains the Principles of Law

In case of State of Haryana v. Amin Lal [2024] GCtR 2966 (SC) it was held that State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government. Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period.

It was also explained that "revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence."

"It is a well-settled principle that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiffs must establish their ownership."