1983 Fine For Dumping Cow Dung On Municipal Plot Undercuts Man’s Adverse-Possession Claim, P&H HC Upholds Suit Dismissal

The plaintiff claimed that he had used a vacant plot opposite his house since 1954 for tethering cattle, storing agricultural implements and other purposes, and that his possession had made him owner by adverse possession.

The Municipality asserted ownership of the land and alleged encroachment.

After the plaintiff was challaned and fined for placing rubbish and cow dung on the land, the Municipality served him with a notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.

The trial court decreed his suit for permanent injunction, finding adverse possession; the first appellate court reversed that decree, holding that he had not established ownership or a right to injunction.

The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.

Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal proof that possession was actual, open, continuous and hostile to the true owner, accompanied by an assertion of ownership in denial of that owner’s title; long possession alone is insufficient.

Where possession began permissively or can be attributed to a lawful origin, it does not become adverse merely through the passage of time.

The claimant must plead and prove when and how possession became hostile, so that the limitation period can be shown to have commenced.

The Court applied the principles stated in Bhag Singh (D) Through Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) Through LRs & Ors., 2026 AIR Supreme Court 4303, including its reliance on T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa.

The Court also noted that a declaration of title cannot be granted in a suit framed only for injunction.

The plaintiff’s own pleadings showed that the Municipality had asserted ownership by challaning him and that he had paid a fine for placing rubbish and cow dung on the land.

The Court treated those circumstances as inconsistent with the claim that he had openly and hostilely denied the Municipality’s title for the required period.

Apart from oral assertions, the plaintiff produced no reliable evidence establishing the commencement or continuity of hostile possession; his claimed use of the land did not, by itself, establish title or a legal right to possess it.

The first appellate court had therefore correctly reassessed the pleadings and evidence, while the trial court had wrongly inferred adverse possession and granted declaratory relief in an injunction suit.

As the appellate findings were supported by the evidence and raised no question of law, the High Court found no basis for second-appeal interference.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld the first appellate court’s judgment and decree.

The Municipality remained free to seek possession through due process of law.