Supreme Court of India
The State Of Haryana vs Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His … on 19 November, 2024
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2024 INSC 875
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25213 of 2024)
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
High Court’s decision, the appellants (original
Date: 2024.11.19
19:12:43 IST
Reason:
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 1 of 19
defendants), namely the State of Haryana and
the Public Works Department (PWD), have
preferred this appeal.
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 theSLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 2 of 19
Code of Civil Procedure, 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 1879-80.
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?”SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 3 of 19
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 1879-80 (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 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 appealSLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 4 of 19
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 1879-80.
• 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:
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 5 of 19
“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 1879-80.
• The First Appellate Court erred in shifting the
burden of proof onto the plaintiffs and in not
appreciating the evidence correctly.
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 6 of 19
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.
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 toSLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 7 of 19
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 theySLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 8 of 19
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 theSLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 9 of 19
appellants did not specifically deny their
ownership of the suit property in their written
statement 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-
80 (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
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 10 of 19
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 1904-05 to 2019-20.
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’
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 11 of 19
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 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allegations
of fact not denied specifically are deemed to beSLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 12 of 19
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 1969-70 (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,
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 13 of 19
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
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 14 of 19
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
1879-80, they have perfected 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.P1, this
Court emphatically held that the State cannot be
permitted to take the plea of adverse possession.
The relevant paragraphs from this judgement 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 procedure1
(2020) 2 SCC 569SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 15 of 19
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.”
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 16 of 19
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 1879-80
(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 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.
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 17 of 19
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
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 18 of 19
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.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B.VARALE)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
SLP(CIVIL) NO. 25213 OF 2024 Page 19 of 19