The recent observation by the Supreme Court emphasized that merely possessing a piece of land for an extended period does not automatically establish a claim to that land under adverse possession principles [Government of Kerala and Another v. Joseph and Others].
A panel of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol also pointed out that when a disputed land is being claimed through adverse possession and is owned by the government, the Court must conduct a more thorough and effective examination.
The Court underlined that in cases where government land is involved, the Court has a responsibility to approach the matter with heightened seriousness, effectiveness, caution, and thoroughness due to the potential impact on the government’s rights to the property.
The Court’s observation also stressed that guesses, assumptions, and approximations are insufficient grounds for transferring government land rights to individuals who lack such rights.
The Court reiterated that claiming land through adverse possession requires possessing it openly, continuously, and hostilely against competing claims. Additionally, a deliberate intention (animus possidendi) to possess the land is necessary; mere permissive possession without this intent doesn’t qualify as adverse possession.
The Supreme Court was reviewing an appeal lodged by the Kerala government contesting a decision of the Kerala High Court. The High Court had ruled that certain land, initially belonging to the Kerala government, was now owned by a private entity due to the application of adverse possession principles.
The private party had been in possession of the land since 1940 when they acquired ownership. In 1983, their legal representatives challenged eviction proceedings initiated by the State. Although a lower court sided with the representatives, a higher district court overturned this decision in 1995.
In the subsequent appeal, the High Court ruled in favor of the representatives and against the State, leading the State government to bring the matter before the Supreme Court.
The apex court determined that the private party’s long possession was insufficiently proven to meet the standards of a “more serious and effective” inquiry required when government land rights are involved.
The Court further noted the absence of concrete, substantial, or conclusive evidence establishing the private claimants’ extended possession.
Hence, the Court concluded that mere prolonged possession does not automatically grant adverse possession rights. Unsupported assumptions cannot justify transferring state-held land rights to someone without such rights.
In light of this, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling and ruled in favor of the State.
Name: – Ritesh palaur, University: – Sambalpur University, Semester: – 2nd
0 Comments