State's plea of adverse possession rejected; Court affirms that land cannot be taken without lawful acquisition and compensation
In a significant judgment delivered on September 22, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, through Justice Mr. Romesh Verma, dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh's Regular Second Appeal in the case titled State of H.P. v. Prittam Singh. The Court upheld the first appellate court's decree granting possession of a 0-06-56 hectare land parcel in village Haroli, District Una, to the respondent, Prittam Singh, rejecting the State's claim of adverse possession and limitation.
The dispute arose when the respondent, a retired government employee and landowner, filed a suit in 2006 against the State alleging unauthorized construction of a road on his agricultural land without acquisition, consent, or payment of compensation. The plaintiff contended that the State's actions violated his constitutional right under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, which protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law and with compensation.
The State contested the suit by asserting that the road had existed since 1971-72 with the plaintiff's consent and claimed ownership through adverse possession. The trial court initially dismissed the suit on grounds of limitation and acquiescence, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, recognizing the plaintiff's ownership and granting a decree for possession. The State then filed the present second appeal challenging this order.
After thorough scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, the High Court affirmed the appellate court's findings. The Court emphasized the principle that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of private property without following due process, including formal acquisition and compensation. It relied heavily on binding Supreme Court precedents, such as Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), which assert that adverse possession is not available to the State against its own citizens. The Court pointed out that the State's vague and cryptic plea of adverse possession failed to prove essential ingredients such as the date of possession, nature of possession, knowledge of the true owner, continuity, openness, and hostile intent.
Moreover, the Court rejected the State's argument on limitation and laches, holding that delay cannot be a shield for unlawful deprivation of property. It underscored the continuing cause of action doctrine and the judiciary's duty to do substantial justice without being confined by limitation laws in matters involving fundamental rights.
The judgment reiterates that possession founded on lawful title cannot be converted into adverse possession. The Court also noted that adverse possession requires clear hostile intent and denial of ownership rights, which was absent in the present case. The State was left at liberty to acquire the land through lawful procedures as mandated by the Constitution.
This ruling reinforces the protection of property rights against unauthorized State encroachments and clarifies that the doctrine of adverse possession cannot be invoked by the government to bypass statutory land acquisition laws.
Bottom Line:
Property law - State cannot dispossess a citizen of his land without authority of law, acquisition and payment of compensation - Plea of adverse possession by State against its own citizen is not tenable - In suit for possession based on title, where State admitted plaintiff's ownership and failed to prove essential ingredients of adverse possession, decree for possession in favour of plaintiff upheld and State left at liberty to acquire land in accordance with law.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 300A; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sections 96, 100
State of H.P. v. Prittam Singh, (HP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990817
