Prolonged unauthorized occupation of State land confers no legal right or title upon the occupant.

The petitioners claimed continuous physical possession of 23 kanals and 07 marlas of land in Village Najla Chak for over three decades, leading to the attestation of Sehat Kasht Mutation No. 40 in 2007

In 2014, a third party, Bansi Lal, challenged this mutation before the Collector, alleging the land was State-owned "Khad" (grazing land) and included temple property

The Collector set aside the mutation on 13.06.2015 and ordered eviction

Concurrent to these proceedings, the petitioners obtained a civil court decree in 2014 restraining private defendants from forcibly dispossessing them

The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, which was dismissed on 06.03.2026

The petitioners subsequently moved the High Court to quash the Divisional Commissioner’s order

1. Whether long-term unauthorized possession of State land confers any legal right or title upon the occupants to hold the land

2. Whether the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity of hearing during the revision proceedings

3. Whether a civil court decree for permanent injunction against private parties validates an illegal mutation or prevents the State from asserting ownership

The court applied the principle that no individual can occupy State land without a valid legal allotment

It relied on the distinction between a possessory injunction and a declaration of title, noting that a civil decree restraining interference with possession does not adjudicate ownership or validate revenue mutations when the State is the owner

Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle of estoppel, holding that a party who fails to avail themselves of adequate opportunities to present their case cannot later claim a violation of natural justice

The Court observed that the revenue records (Khasra Girdawari Kharief 2007) explicitly categorized the subject land as State land and the petitioners' possession as unauthorized

The Court reasoned that the original mutating officer had illegally regularized this occupation via Mutation No. 40, which the lower authorities correctly set aside as "illegal possession... does not confer any rights"

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court noted the Fard Ahkam proved the petitioners were granted multiple opportunities to be heard but failed to engage counsel; thus, the lack of representation was not attributable to the State

Finally, the Court dismissed the reliance on the 2014 civil decree, clarifying that the decree only prohibited "forcible" dispossession by specific private individuals and did not vest title in the petitioners or bind the State’s right to evict encroachers from its property

The Court held that the petitioners were encroachers with no legal right to State land

It affirmed the direction to the Tehsildar to evict all illegal occupants and take necessary steps to prevent further encroachment of the State land in the village