SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, December 26, 2024

Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3368

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE VIKRAM NATH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.)

State of Haryana and Another … Appellant(s);

Versus
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) through his Lrs and
Others … Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25213 of 2024)
Decided on November 19, 2024
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banarjee, A.S.G.
Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Mr. Shivang Jain, Adv.
Mr. Varun Goel, Adv.
Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Ms. Kanika, Adv.
Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, AOR
Mr. Amaan Khan, Adv.
Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. R.D. Jatain, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Sinhmar, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar, AOR
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VIKRAM NATH, J.:— Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
31st January 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in RSA No. 3818 of 1987. The High Court allowed the
regular second appeal filed by the respondents herein (original
plaintiffs), setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and
restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellants (original
defendants), namely the State of Haryana and the Public Works
Department (PWD), have preferred this appeal.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The facts of the case leading up to the present appeal are as

follows:
3.1 The dispute pertains to a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas
Pukhta comprised in Khasra No. 2348 (0-10 Biswas) and Khasra No.
2458 (0-8 Biswas), situated within the revenue estate of
Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The land is located on both sides of National
Highway No. 10, which connects Delhi and Bahadurgarh.
3.2. On 28th March 1981, the original plaintiffs, namely, Shri
Amin Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession of the suit
property before the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bahadurgarh. They
claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records and alleged
that the defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the land
approximately three and a half years prior to the filing of the suit.
The plaintiffs contended that despite repeated requests and a legal
notice served under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
the defendants failed to vacate the land.
3.3. The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested
the suit by filing a written statement dated 17th September, 1985.
They raised preliminary objections, asserting that they had been in
continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1879-
1880. They claimed that their possession was open, hostile, and
adverse to the plaintiffs, and as such, they had become owners by
way of adverse possession. The defendants also contended that the
land had been used as a store by the PWD and its predecessor
entities, including the District Board and Zila Parishad, for over a
century.
3.4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
main issues:
“A. Whether the State of Haryana has become owner of the suit
land by way of adverse possession?
B. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit?”
3.5 The plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and produced
revenue records, including copies of jamabandis (Exhibits P1 to P9).
The defendants examined ten witnesses and produced various
documents, including revenue records dating back to 1879-1880
(Exhibits D1 to D22).
3.6. On 2nd May 1986, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour
of the plaintiffs. It held that the defendants had failed to prove that
they had become owners by adverse possession. Mere placement of
bitumen drums and construction of a boundary wall in 1980 did not
constitute adverse possession. The plaintiffs had locus standi to file
the suit, as they were recorded as owners in the jamabandis. The
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

defendants' possession, if any, was permissive and not hostile.

3.7. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed
an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak. The First Appellate
Court, after reappreciating the evidence, allowed the appeal on 8th
October 1987 and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The Appellate Court
held that:
• The plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership, as they did not
produce the sale deeds or mutation records establishing their
title.
• The jamabandi entries in favor of the plaintiffs were doubtful
and appeared to be manipulated.
• The defendants and their predecessors had been in continuous
possession of the suit land since 1879-1880.
• The defendants' possession was open, continuous, and adverse,
thereby perfecting their title by adverse possession.
• The plaintiffs were attempting to grab the land by manipulating
revenue records.
3.8. The plaintiffs filed RSA No. 3818 of 1987 before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the judgment of the First
Appellate Court. The High Court framed the following substantial
questions of law:
“I. Whether the State can set up the plea of adverse
possession, and does it imply admitting the title of the plaintiffs?
II. Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate
Court suffer from illegality and perversity?”
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that:
• By taking the plea of adverse possession, the defendants
impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiffs.
• The State cannot claim title through adverse possession against
its own citizens.
• The defendants failed to specifically deny the plaintiffs' title as
required under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• The possession of the defendants was permissive, as evidenced
by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-1880.
• The First Appellate Court erred in shifting the burden of proof
onto the plaintiffs and in not appreciating the evidence
correctly.
3.9. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the defendants
(now appellants) have approached this Court.
4. We have heard Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional
Solicitor General for the Appellants and Shri Santosh Paul, learned
Senior Counsel for the Respondents.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned A.S.G, appearing on behalf of

the appellant the State of Haryana and its authorities, has argued that
the High Court erred in overturning the well-reasoned judgment of the
First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The gist
of his arguments is as follows:
(i). Plaintiffs' Failure to Prove Title : The appellants assert that
the plaintiffs did not produce any substantive evidence to
establish their ownership of the suit property. Despite
opportunities provided by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court, the plaintiffs failed to present any sale deeds or title
documents. Mere reliance on jamabandi (revenue records) is
insufficient to confer title, as revenue entries do not create or
extinguish ownership rights.
(ii). Burden of Proof Misplaced : The appellants further argue that
the High Court incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto the
defendants to establish who the real owner is. In a suit for
possession, the plaintiff must stand on the strength of their own
title. The appellants cite precedents to emphasize that the
weakness of the defendant's case cannot be a ground for granting
relief to the plaintiffs.
(iii). Adverse Possession and Limitation : While acknowledging
that the State cannot claim adverse possession against a private
individual, the appellants maintain that they have been in
continuous, peaceful possession of the suit land since 1879. Under
Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, such possession
raises a presumption of ownership in their favor. Moreover, the
plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, as they failed to challenge the appellants'
possession within the prescribed period.
(iv). Necessity of Declaratory Relief : The appellants contend that
the plaintiffs should have filed a suit for declaration of title before
seeking possession, especially when their ownership was in
dispute. Without a declaratory decree establishing their title, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for possession.
(v). Conduct of the Plaintiffs : The appellants highlight that the
First Appellate Court had termed the plaintiffs as “land grabbers”
who manipulated revenue records to claim ownership. The High
Court, however, did not address these observations or the detailed
reasoning provided by the First Appellate Court.
6. The arguments advanced on behalf of respondents by Shri
Santosh Paul, learned Senior Advocate are summarized hereunder:
(i). Admission of Plaintiffs' Title by the Defendants : The
respondents assert that the appellants did not specifically deny
their ownership of the suit property in their written statement
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

before the Trial Court. By taking the plea of adverse possession,

the appellants implicitly admitted the respondents' title. Under
Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, failure to deny an
allegation of fact amounts to an admission.
(ii). State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession : The respondents
argue that the State cannot perfect title over private property
through adverse possession against its own citizens. Allowing
such a claim would be contrary to the principles of a welfare State
and undermine citizens' constitutional rights.
(iii). Permissive Possession by the State : The respondents
contend that the appellants' possession of the suit land was
permissive and not adverse. The Misal Hakiyat of 1879-1880
(Exhibit DW10/1) indicates that the State's possession was
conditional, described as “Bikhar Bahali Kaza,” meaning till the
existence of an orchard. Acts such as placing bitumen drums or
constructing temporary structures do not amount to adverse
possession. The Trial Court rightly held that such acts do not
constitute possession sufficient to establish adverse possession.
(iv). Establishment of Ownership through Revenue Records :
The respondents have established their ownership through
continuous entries in the revenue records (jamabandis) from 1904
-1905 to 2019-2020. Plaintiff No. 1 derived title through a
registered sale deed dated 5th July 1960, and Plaintiff No. 2
through a sale deed dated 12th March 1973. Mutations were duly
sanctioned based on these sale deeds. Revenue records are
records of rights and are admissible evidence to prove ownership.
(v). Burden of Proof Lies on Defendants : Since the appellants
did not deny the respondents' title, the burden was on the
appellants to prove that they had become owners by adverse
possession. The appellants failed to discharge this burden. The
Trial Court correctly found that the appellants' possession, if any,
began in 1980 and was insufficient to establish adverse
possession.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced by both parties and
perused the records, the core issue before us is whether the High Court
was correct in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court
and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the
respondents (plaintiffs). The appellants challenge the High Court's
decision on several grounds, which we shall address in their turn.
8. The appellants contention that plaintiff failed to prove their title
and ownership is completely misplaced for the reasons and analysis
made hereunder:
8.1 We find this argument unconvincing for several reasons : In
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

their written statement before the Trial Court, the appellants did not
specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit property.
Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession.
Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted.
By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly
admitted the plaintiffs' title.
8.2 The plaintiffs relied on jamabandi entries to establish their
ownership. The jamabandi for the year 1969-1970 (Exhibit P1)
records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half
share. 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.
8.3 The respondents have produced copies of registered sale
deeds and mutation records before this Court, which were part of the
additional documents filed with the counter-affidavit. Plaintiff No. 1,
Shri Amin Lal, derived title through a registered sale deed dated 5th
July 1960, and mutation No. 8329 was sanctioned on 20th April
1982. Plaintiff No. 2, Shri Ashok Kumar, derived his title through a
registered sale deed dated 12th March 1973, and mutation No. 8330
was sanctioned on 20th April 1982. These documents establish a
chain of title and cannot be ignored.
8.4 The appellants did not dispute the plaintiffs' title in their
pleadings or during the trial. The First Appellate Court's finding that
the plaintiffs are not the true owners is based on conjecture and
lacks evidentiary support. The appellants cannot now, at this
appellate stage, challenge the plaintiffs' ownership without having
raised a specific denial earlier.
9. The appellants' next submission that the burden of proof lay on
the plaintiffs to establish their title is equally not borne out from the
records. It is a well-settled principle that in a suit for possession based
on title, the plaintiffs must establish their ownership. In the present
case, the plaintiffs have done so by producing revenue records and,
subsequently, the registered sale deeds and mutation entries.
Furthermore, as the appellants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title
specifically and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has
shifted to the appellants to prove their adverse possession. In the
present case, the plaintiffs have sought possession based on their title,
which they have established through documentary evidence.
10. The appellants claim that due to their long and continuous
possession of the suit property since 1879-1880, they have perfected
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

their title, is also not sustainable in law. However, it is a fundamental

principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the
property of its own citizens. In Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.1, this Court
emphatically held that the State cannot be permitted to take the plea
of adverse possession. The relevant paragraphs from this judgment are
reproduced hereunder:
“12.9. 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. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1
SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the
State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or
any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare
State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status
beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of
Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ)
769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only
a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human
rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as
right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights
have gained a multi-faceted dimension.
12.11. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the
High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the
land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession.
The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the
plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person
guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property
for over 12 years. 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, as has been done in the present
case.”
11. Allowing the State to appropriate private property through
adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of
citizens and erode public trust in the government. Therefore, the
appellants' plea of adverse possession is untenable in law. The
appellants' possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-1880
(Exhibit DW10/1), was permissive and conditional. The entry describes
the possession as “Bikhar Bahali Kaza,” meaning till the existence of an
orchard. Such permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of
adverse possession.
12. Furthermore, the acts relied upon by the appellants—such as
placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Thursday, December 26, 2024
Printed For: Pallavi B.S.
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

constructing a boundary wall in 1980—do not constitute adverse

possession. Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous,
open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period.
In this case, the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility
and the requisite duration.
13. The appellants last contention that the High Court overstepped
its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
reappreciating evidence and interfering with findings of fact also has no
legs to stand. The High Court had framed substantial questions of law
regarding whether the State can claim adverse possession against its
own citizens and whether taking the plea of adverse possession implies
admission of the plaintiffs' title. These are substantial questions of law
that justify the High Court's interference. The High Court found that the
First Appellate Court had ignored material evidence and legal
principles, leading to a perverse judgment. Therefore, the High Court
was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
14. The findings of the First Appellate Court's judgment are flawed
for various reasons. The court erroneously placed the burden of proving
ownership on the plaintiffs, despite the defendants' admission of their
title by pleading adverse possession. The court disregarded the
jamabandi entries and other revenue records without valid justification.
The court's conclusion that the plaintiffs are “land grabbers” is not
supported by evidence and appears to be based on conjecture.
Therefore, the High Court rightly set aside the First Appellate Court's
judgment, which suffered from legal infirmities and misappreciation of
evidence.
15. In view of the above analysis, we find no merit in the appellants'
contentions. The High Court's judgment is based on sound legal
principles and correct appreciation of evidence. The plaintiffs have
established their ownership of the suit property, and the State cannot
claim adverse possession against its own citizens.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
———
1
(2020) 2 SCC 569

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.