State cannot claim adverse possession over citizen’s land used for a road without acquisition, Himachal Pradesh High Court rules

The plaintiff claimed ownership of 0-06-56 hectares of land in Haroli, Una, and alleged that the State had constructed a road over it without acquisition or compensation.

The State maintained that the road had existed since 1971–72, had been constructed with the plaintiff’s consent, and that it had acquired title by adverse possession.

The trial court dismissed the possession suit, relying on acquiescence and limitation; the first appellate court reversed that decision and decreed possession, while permitting the State to acquire the land in accordance with law.

The State appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the first appellate court’s findings were perverse or legally unsustainable because of misappreciation of pleadings or misreading of oral or documentary evidence

2. Whether the State could defeat the plaintiff’s claim to possession by asserting adverse possession over land whose ownership it acknowledged

3. Whether the claim was liable to fail on limitation or delay and laches, given the road’s long-standing existence

Article 300A of the Constitution protects property from deprivation except by authority of law; the State must use a lawful acquisition or other permissible statutory process and cannot appropriate private property without following due process.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3368, for the proposition that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens.

More generally, adverse possession requires clear pleading and proof of open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile possession, including the possessor’s animus possidendi and facts showing the true owner knew of the hostile claim; mere long possession is insufficient.

The Court relied on Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P., (2022) 7 SCC 508, in rejecting the State’s reliance on delay where property had been taken without lawful process.

Under Section 100 CPC, a High Court may not reappreciate factual findings merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where findings are contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, or otherwise legally perverse.

The plaintiff’s title was supported by the revenue records, including the Misal Haqiat, and the State’s witness admitted that the land belonged to the plaintiff and had not been acquired.

The State’s adverse-possession plea was vague and unsupported by proof of when possession became hostile, the nature and duration of that hostility, or the plaintiff’s knowledge of it; in addition, the Court held that the State could not rely on adverse possession to appropriate a citizen’s land.

The Court also rejected the limitation objection, applying the principles in Sukh Dutt Ratra to the State’s uncompensated use of private property without lawful acquisition.

It found no basis under Section 100 CPC to disturb the first appellate court’s findings, which were supported by the evidence and the applicable law.

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, leaving in place the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and the direction permitting the State to acquire the land in accordance with law.