Mere long period of possession does not always translate into right of adverse possession: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a long period of possession of land will not always translate into a right over the land through the principle of adverse possession [Government of Kerala and Another v. Joseph and Others]..A division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol added that when the disputed land claimed by way of adverse possession belongs to the State, the nature of inquiry by the Court must be more serious and effective."When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection as it may lead to Destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property," the Court said.The Court also observed that surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve as the basis for taking away the government's rights over land and placing such rights in the hands of persons who did not have any such rights.The Court reiterated that in order to claim rights over land through adverse possession, the possession must be open, clear, continuous, and hostile to other claims by rival claimants.The Court added that such a mental intent to possess the land or animus possidendi must be there and that mere permissive possession in the absence of animus possidendi would not constitute a claim of adverse possession..The Court was hearing an appeal moved by the Kerala government challenging a Kerala High Court ruling. The High Court had concluded that certain land, which originally belonged to the Kerala government, now belonged to a private party by virtue of the principle of adverse possession. The private party had been in possession of the land since 1940, which was when he acquired the title. In 1983, his legal representatives filed a suit against eviction proceedings initiated by the State. A munsiff court allowed the suit, although a district court quashed this ruling in 1995. .In the second appeal, the High Court ruled in favor of the legal representatives and against the State, prompting the State government to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. .The apex court found that the long possession of the private party was not proven sufficiently to satisfy the requirement of the "more serious and effective" enquiry contemplated when State rights over land are involved. The Court added that there was no concrete, proper or conclusive proof to show long possession by the private claimants. "Merely a long period of possession, does not translate into the right of adverse possession. Surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve the basis for taking away the right over land resting with the State and place the said bundle of rights in the hands of one who did not have any such rights," the Court added..The Court, therefore, proceeded to set aside the High Court decision and rule in favor of the State..[Read Judgment]