38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, May 11, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Supreme Court dismisses State’s claim of adverse possession over private property, upholds citizens rights [Read Judgment]

By Saket Sourav      20 November, 2024 05:38 PM      0 Comments
Supreme Court dismisses States claim of adverse possession over private property upholds citizens rights

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed the State of Haryana’s appeal claiming adverse possession over private land, emphasizing that a welfare state cannot claim ownership of citizens’ property through adverse possession.

A division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the case concerning a dispute over 18 Biswas of land in Bahadurgarh, Haryana.

The court addressed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had ruled in favor of the private landowners. The court noted, “By taking the plea of adverse possession, the appellants impliedly admitted the respondents’ title. The State cannot perfect title over private property through adverse possession against its own citizens.”

Supreme Court Upholds Private Property Rights Against State Claims

Addressing the State’s claims, the court observed, “The appellants’ possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80, was permissive and conditional. The entry describes the possession as ‘Bikhar Bahali Kaza,’ meaning till the existence of an orchard. Such permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession.”

The court emphasized the fundamental principles of property rights, stating, “The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right.”

In response to the State’s appeal, the court dismissed it, concluding, “The High Court’s judgment is based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence. The plaintiffs have established their ownership of the suit property, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens.”

Adverse Possession Cannot Override Citizens’ Ownership, Rules Apex Court

The court effectively reinforced the principle that a welfare state must respect private property rights and cannot use adverse possession to appropriate citizens’ land.

Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the State of Haryana.

Mr. Santosh Paul, Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents.

Case title: The State of Haryana & Anr. Vs Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors.

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a law graduate from The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has a keen ...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

mamata-banerjee-refuses-to-resign-after-historic-election-defeat
Trending Political NEWS
Mamata Banerjee Refuses to Resign After Historic Election Defeat

Mamata Banerjee defies convention, refuses to resign despite massive poll defeat—triggering a constitutional debate over mandate, legality, and democratic norms.

05 May, 2026 10:29 AM
delhi-hc-rejects-spicejets-review-petition-against-144-crore-deposit-order-imposes-50000-costs
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Rejects SpiceJet’s Review Petition Against ₹144 Crore Deposit Order, Imposes ₹50,000 Costs

Delhi High Court rejects SpiceJet’s review against ₹144 crore deposit order in Maran dispute, imposes ₹50,000 costs for non-compliance with directions.

05 May, 2026 12:36 PM
silence-of-differently-abled-rape-victim-cannot-suppress-truth-courts-must-focus-on-substance-over-manner-of-expression-sikkim-hc
Trending Judiciary
Silence of Differently-Abled Rape Victim Cannot Suppress Truth; Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Manner of Expression: Sikkim HC [Read Judgment]

Sikkim High Court upholds rape conviction, ruling that a differently-abled victim’s silence cannot override credible medical and eyewitness evidence.

05 May, 2026 12:45 PM
sc-stays-5-lakh-cost-condition-for-setting-aside-non-bailable-warrants-against-accused-in-sfio-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Stays ₹5 Lakh Cost Condition for Setting Aside Non-Bailable Warrants Against Accused in SFIO Case [Read Order]

Supreme Court stays ₹5 lakh cost condition for setting aside non-bailable warrants in SFIO case, says validity of such condition needs examination.

05 May, 2026 12:56 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email