STATE OF HARYANA versus MUKESH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 30-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 211 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
MUKESH KUMAR & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28034 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 
[OALVEER BHANDARI ANO OEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Adverse possession: 
A 
B 
Property rights- Claim for, by way of adverse possession 
C 
- Whether the State/Police Department, which is in charge of 
protection of life, liberty and property of people can be 
permitted to grab the land and property of its own citizens 
under the banner of the plea of adverse possession - Held: 
If the protectors of law become the grabbers of the property 
(land and building), then, people will be left with no protection 
D 
and there would be total anarchy in the entire country - It is 
indeed a very disturbing and dangerous trend and must be 
arrested without further loss of time in the larger public interest 
- No Government Department, Public Undertaking, and 
much Jess the Police Department should be permitted to 
E 
perfect the title of the land or building by invoking the 
provisions of adverse possession and grab the property of its 
own citizens in the manner - There is an urgent need for a 
fresh look on the entire Jaw of adverse possession - In the 
instant case, . the suit was filed by State of Haryana through 
F 
the Superintendent of Police seeking right of ownership by 
adverse possession - Suit was dismissed by courts below -
Revenue records of the State revealed that the disputed 
property stood in the name of the defendants - It is 
unfortunate that the Superintendent of Police, a senior official G 
of the Indian Police Service, made repeated attempts to grab 
the property of the true owner by filing repeated appeals before 
different forums claiming right of ownership by way of adverse 
possession - Special Leave Petition dismissed with costs of 
211 
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Rs.50,0001- to be paid by the State of Haryana for filing 
frivolous petition and unnecessarily wasting the time of the 
Court and demonstrating its evil design of grabbing the 
properties of lawful owners in a clandestine manner -
Recommendation to Union of India to immediately consider 
8 and seriously deliberate either abolition of the law of adverse 
possession and in the alternate to make suitable 
amendments in law of adverse possession - Need for 
legislation - Costs. 
Historical background of adverse possession -
C Discussed. 
Burden of proof - Held: A person pleading adverse 
possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to 
defeat the rights of the true owner - It is for him to clearly 
D plead and establish all facts neces~ "'TY to establish adverse 
possession - Equity. 
Right to property - Held: Is not only constitutional or 
statutory right but also a human right - Therefore, even claim 
of adverse possession has to be read in that context -
E Constitution of India, 1950. 
F 
Protection of property rights - Fifth Amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution - a principle of a civilized society -
Discussed. 
The State of Haryana filed a civil suit through the 
Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, seeking a relief of 
declaration to the effect that it has acquired the rights of 
ownership by way of adverse possession over land 
G measuring 8 biswas comprising khewat no. 34, khata no. 
56, khasra no. 3673/452 situated in the revenue estate of 
Hidayatpur Chhavni, Haryana. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate 
court dismissed the appeal with exemplary cost of 
H Rs.25000/- on the ground that the Police department is 
STATE OF HARYANA v. MUKESH KUMAR & ORS. 
213 
for the protection of the people and property of the 
A 
citizens and the police department had unnecessarily 
dragged the defendants in unnecessary litigation. The 
High Court dismissed the appeal. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
8 
instant special leave petition was whether the State, 
which is in charge of protection of life, liberty and property 
of the people can be permitted to grab the land and 
property of its own citizens under the banner of the plea 
of adverse possession. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. In a democracy, governed by rule of law, 
c 
the task of protecting life and property of the citizens is 
entrusted to the police department of the government. In o 
the instant case, the suit was filed through the 
Superintendent of ,Police, Gurgaon, seeking right of 
ownership by adverse possession. The revenue records 
of the St

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.