THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. versus AMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1257 · Decided: 19-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1257 : 2024 INSC 875
The State of Haryana & Anr. 
v. 
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12551 of 2024 )
19 November 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit 
property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana 
and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit 
in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants had failed 
to prove that they had become owners by adverse possession. 
Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an 
appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and 
dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff 
failed to prove their ownership to the land. In second appeal, the 
Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of the First Appellate Court 
and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court. 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 in the suit for possession of 
land against the appellants/defendants.
Headnotes†
Ownership of Plaintiffs over the Suit Property – Not specifically 
denied:
Held: 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. [Para 8]
Relevance of Revenue Records as evidence in title dispute:
Held: The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 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 
* Author
1258
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 – Further, Registered sale deeds and 
mutation records produced by the Respondents establish a chain 
of title and cannot be ignored – The plaintiffs have established their 
ownership of the suit property. [Paras 8 and 15]
Burden of Proof to establish title – Shifting of:
Held: The appellants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically 
and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has shifted 
to the appellants to prove their adverse possession – In the present 
case, the plaintiffs have sought possession based on their title, 
which they have established through documentary evidence – The 
First Appellate 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. [Paras 9 and 14]
Adverse Possession by State against a Citizen:
Held: It is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim 
adverse possession over the property of its own citizens – In 
Vidya Devi v. State of H.P ((2020) 2 SCC 569), this Court 
emphatically held that the State cannot be permitted to take the 
plea of adverse possession – Allowing the State to appropriate  
private property through adverse possession would undermine 
the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the 
government. [Paras 10, 11 and 15]
Adverse Possession – Constituents:
Held: The appellants' possession, as evidenced by the Misal 
Hakiyat of 1879-80, was permissive and conditional – Such 
permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse 
possession – The acts relied upon by the appellants such as placing 
bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing 
a boundary wall in 1980 do not constitute adverse possession – 
Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, 
peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period – In 
this case, the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility 
and the requisite duration. [Paras 11 and 12]
[2024] 11 S.C.R

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