An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated January 31, 2019 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case of 1987. The High Court set 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 High Court's decision, the appellants (original defendants), namely the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD) chose to appeal.
The dispute related to a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas Pukhta 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. On March, 28, 1981, Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar, the original plaintiffs 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendants failed to vacate the land.
The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested the suit by filing a written statement dated September 17, 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.
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?”
On May 2, 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."
The defendants filed an appeal against the Trial Court's decision, before the District Judge, Rohtak. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the evidence, allowed the appeal on October 8, 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."
The plaintiffs challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court before the High Court. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:“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."
The defendants (now appellants) have approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment. The core issue before the Court was 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 Court observed:"The appellants contention that plaintiff failed to prove their title and ownership is completely misplaced." The Court found this argument unconvincing. It noted that "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 be admitted. By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title."
The Court has recorded that "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." It underlined that copies of registered sale deeds and mutation records produced before the Court "establish a chain of title and cannot be ignored."
The Court observed:"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."
The judgement reads: "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." It pointed out that "the appellants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically". As a consequence, "the burden has shifted to the appellants to prove their adverse possession."
The Court dismissed the appellants claim that "due to their long and continuous possession of the suit property since 1879-80, they have perfected their title", as being unsustainable in law. The judgment unequivocally states that "it is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens." It relied on Court's decision in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), to emphatically drive home the point that "the State cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession."
The Court observed:"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 judgement reads: "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."
It found the "findings of the First Appellate Court's judgment are flawed" and observed: "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 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."
Supreme Court's bench of Justice Vikarm Nath and Prasanna B, Varale concluded:The High Court's judgment is based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence." The judgement authored by Justice Vikarm Nath was delivered on November 19, 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment