SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Project topic:
Rights of Land Owner against adverse possession as Human Rights

SUBMITTED BY:
PARTH SHARMA
ROLL NO:1543
5TH YEAR, 10TH SEMESTER
B.A.LL.B. (HONS.)

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. S.C.Roy
(faculty of human rights law)

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA.

 Contents
Project topic: ................................................................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ....................................................................................................... 3
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 4
SOURCES OF DATA........................................................................................................... 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................... 4
HYPOTHESIS ...................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: Right to Property .................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2: Definition of Adverse possession ......................................................................... 6
Chapter 3: Relationship between HRs and Property and need of comparison with
international law.................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 4: Case Law ........................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 5: Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 19
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am highly elated to work on topic: RIGHTS OF LAND OWNER AGAINST ADVERSE

POSSESSION AS HUMAN RIGHTS. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the
people who have been instrumental in successful completion of the project. I am thankful to
my teacher who guided me. I would like to enlighten my readers with my efforts. I have tried
my best to bring luminosity to this project.
I am thankful to my teacher and friends for providing me continuous guidance. I am thankful
to librarian who provided me required books and necessary materials. I could not complete
the project without their assistance.

PARTH SHARMA
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To understand the concept of adverse possession, right to property and how does adverse
possession affect right to property and the major role played by Human Rights to abridge
the gap between right to property and adverse possession.

SOURCES OF DATA

Primary and Secondary sources both are used by the researcher in the form of reports, bare
acts, books and internet materials for the compilation of this research work.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has primarily relied on the doctrinal method. The research is based on
comprehensive study of sources like text books, journals, articles, web sources etc.

HYPOTHESIS

The researcher believes that the doctrine of adverse possession is baseless and it should be
removed because it gives right to an illegal occupant of the land and therefore restricting the
actual owner just because of an arbitrarily fixed number of years.
 Chapter 1: Right to Property

The right to property or right to own property (ownership) is often classified as a human
right for natural persons regarding their possessions. A general recognition of a right
to private property is found more rarely and is typically heavily constrained insofar as
property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for production
rather than consumption.1

A right to property is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights,2 but it is not recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.3 The European
Convention on Human Rights, in Protocol 1, article 1, acknowledges a right for natural and
legal persons to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to
secure the payment of taxes".

International conventions:
Property rights are also recognised in the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination which states in Article 5 that everyone has the right to
equality before the law without distinction as to race, colour and national or ethnic origin,
including the "right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "the right
to inherit". The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women recognises the property rights in Article 16, which establishes the same right for both
spouses to ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of
property and Article 15, which establishes women's right to conclude contracts rights.4

Property rights are also enshrined in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of
Their Families. These international human rights instruments for minorities do not establish a
separate right to property, but prohibit discrimination in relation to property rights where such
rights are guaranteed.5

1
AA Berle, 'Property, Production and Revolution' (1965) 65 Columbia Law Review 1
2
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights". un.org. Article 17. 1) Everyone has the right to own property alone
as well as in association with others.
3
Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. pp. 141–142
4
Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common
standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 372.
5
Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common
standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 367.
 Chapter 2: Definition of Adverse possession
Under the doctrine of adverse possession, a person who is not holding the title to the land but
holding the possession of the land owned by someone else for a considerable period may
acquire a valid title to it, provided that the adverse owner is in possession for a sufficient
period as per the Limitations Act. In India, any person in possession of a property for a period
of more than 12 continuous years may claim unfavourable possession of the property.6

Historical background

The idea of Adverse Possession was emanated from England around 1275 and created with a
view to allowing a person to claim the right of “seisin” from his ancestors. Many thought that
it was difficult to enforce the original law on “seisin” and, around 1623, a statute of limitation
had been enacted in a place which allowed an individual in possession of the property for
twenty years or more to gain title to that property. The early English policy was intended to
prevent legal battles about property rights that were time-consuming and expensive. The
doctrine was also established to avoid the wasting of land by requiring owners to control their
property or suffer the loss of title. Subsequently, the definition of adverse possession was
introduced in the United States.

The doctrine of Adverse Possession was critical to the American during their period where
number of property disputes related to Possession of Immovable property by means of
Adverse Possession was surging. Therefore, some states has reduced the limitation period for
the acquisition of land by means of Adverse Possession to five years, whereas in some states
it remained as long as forty years. Since, the doctrine of Adverse Possession was against the
property owned by the government, hence, the US government has amended the practice of
owning the property by means of Adverse Possession.

During the colonial era, prior to the promulgation of the Bill of Rights, the State also seized
the property from private citizens without compensation. Initially, undeveloped land was the
most common form of property purchased by the Government as it pursued the construction
of a public road. Under the colonial regime, it was assumed that the advantages of the road
would often outweigh the value of unimproved land in a newly opened region. The theory of

6
Schedule, The Limitation act, 1963
Adverse Possession emerged at a time when lands were vast, particularly in the United States
of America, and the evidence was scarce in order to silence the title of the possessor and to
prevent fanciful arguments from erupting. The principle of Adverse Possession occurs in
order to correct probable or existing deficiencies in the real estate titles by imposing a
restriction statute on any conflicts over ownership and possession. A landowner should be
protected in title to his land; otherwise, long-lost heirs of any previous owner, owner or
landowner of centuries past would have a legal right to it.

After our country’s independence, we have seen registered title documents and more proper,
if not ideal, title entries in government records. The circumstance has changed, and the law
calls for reform. Law is not a dry matter, it is not static, it is complex. Law is dynamic in the
sense that it is continually evolving due to changes in culture, such as new demands, specific
traditions and outdated concepts. It shall alter by enacting new laws or by amending or
replacing existing ones. It also changes by the creation of new precedents and the overturning
of an existing precedent by the courts. The subject of adverse possession has also been re-
defined by the needs of the society as well as by operation of law.

Elements establishing adverse possession

1. CONTINUITY IN ADVERSE POSSESSION: The Possession and occupancy

of the property by the trespasser/claimant shall be continuous, uninterrupted and
unbroken for the entire statutory limitation duration.
2. HOSTILE POSSESSION: Possession must be aggressive, often referred to as
adverse, if the title is to mature from adverse possession. Hostile Possession means
that the Claimant/ occupier is occupying the land despite knowing that he/she
doesn’t hold any legal title to occupy or possess the said property. Possession must
be aggressive, often referred to as adverse, if the title is to mature from adverse
possession. There will be no conflict or conflict about the title as long as the
claimant continues to claim the land and hold it against the interests of the owner
and the world as a whole. Possession must be aggressive from the start and must
continue throughout the limitation period. One form of hostile occupation arises
when the claimant enters and stays on the land under the colour of the title. The
colour of the title is the appearance of the title as a result of an act which appears,
by its language, to give the applicant a valid title, but does not, in fact, appear to be
 defective. Unless, for example, a person has a legitimate disability at the time of
the execution of an act, the grantee-claimer would not obtain the actual title.
However, the grantee-claimer has the colour of the title because it would appear to
anyone reading the document that the good title had been conveyed. If for the full
statutory period, the claimant owns the land in the manner specified by statute, his
or her colour of the title shall become the real title as a result of adverse
possession.
3. ACTUAL POSSESSION: Actual possession: an adverse possession must be
actual possession, such as the construction of a house, the erection of a shed or
some structure, the fencing of a property, the grazing of cattle on the land, the
farming and harvesting of crops on the land, the planting and cutting of trees, etc.
for the whole statutory limitation period.
4. EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION: During the statutory limitation period, the claimant
must be in the sole physical possession of the property against the legitimate right,
assertion, and title of the rightful owner or other claimants. Land development, the
building of a house, or the erection of boundary walls are examples of “exclusive
ownership.” It must not be taken possession of or pseudo-possession.

Acts that do not constitute adverse possession

1. PERMISSIVE POSSESSION: It cannot be converted into an adverse possession,

particularly where possession is lawful from the outset unless other transparent
actions have been committed by the occupant that will have the effect of denying
the title of the true owner. The permissive character of possession can be inferred
from the circumstances of the case, even without clear evidence. As soon as the
plaintiff shows his intention that the permissive possession would cease, the
permissive possessor would cease to enter the property and, if he does not do so,
his continued presence would be incorrect and would make him liable to surrender
possessions along with mesne profits.
2. ABSENCE OF RIGHTFUL CLAIM: “It was contended before Honorable
Andhra Pradesh High Court about adverse possession by a trust that the right to
the trusteeship of a temple cannot be acquired by adverse possession so long as
 there is no lawful trustee who could claim to recover the office from the person
who claims to hold it adversely to him”.7
3. ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT ANIMUS OR INTENTION: It is the intention to
claim the exclusive title which makes possession adverse. Animus possidendi must
be proved along with the manner of occupancy by the squatter which again varies
from type to type. It is a well-known principle in the fiduciary relationship that the
possession of the agent is the possession of the principle and therefore the existing
relationship between the parties cannot be permitted to be as adverse.
4. LAWS RELATED TO ADVERSE POSSESSION

Now, let us look at the law governing the concept of adverse possession and the trend in
India. The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 deals with adverse possession and the same applies to
Section 27, Article 64, 65, and 112 of the schedule.

1. Extinguishment of right to property- For instituting any suit for the possession
of any property, any person needs to filed the suit within a limitation period else
his right to such property shall be relinquished.8
2. The limitation period is prescribed of 12 years for a claim based on the previous
possession; not on the title. The date of dispossession will begin from the date
when the Plaintiff has been dispossessed. 9
3. It provides a time limit of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property
or any other interest on the grounds of title and that term shall begin from the point
at which the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the Plaintiff.10
4. It prescribes a limitation time of 30 years for any suit brought by the Central
Government or any State Government, including the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir( except a suit brought before the supreme court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction), the limitation period shall begin from the date laid down in
the same suit by a private person.11

7
Palaniyandi Malavarayan v. Dadamalali Vidayan
8
Section 27, Limitation Act 1963
9
Section 63, Limitation Act 1963
10
Section 65, Limitation Act 1963
11
Article 112, Limitation Act 1963
It is evident from the above provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 that if the claim for
possession is not filed within the prescribed limitation period, then the right of the owner
based on title or possession shall be extinguished and the owner who has the possession of
the immovable property shall become the owner by the right. It is also important to note that
Section 27 of the 1963 Act is an exception to the general rule that limitation periods prohibit
only the remedy but do not extinguish the term, which means that it is analogous to the rule
of substantive law.

Supreme Court held that if an unauthorized person is having the possession of an immovable
property adverse to the owner for a period of 12 years then the unauthorized person acquired
title on account of the default or inaction on part of the real owner.12

Adverse possession as a shield

The assertion of ownership by Adverse possession can be made only by way of defence, if it
is disposed of as a defendant in litigation against him. Even if the plaintiff is found to be in
Adverse possession of the immovable property, it cannot seek a declaration or a judgement
from the Court to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Any
claim of ownership can be obtained by the claimant on the grounds of an adverse possession.

The Apex Court held that suit needs to be filed by a person on the basis of title within 12
years from the date of dispossession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and the time limit
commences from the date when the possession of the immovable property becomes adverse
to the Plaintiff. However, if adverse possession is in the knowledge of the true owner then a
defense of plea to adverse possession is only available to the defendant who is in hostile,
continuous, and open possession.13

Supreme Court’s comments on adverse possession

The Apex Court criticised the doctrine of Adverse Possession and maintained that the
doctrine of Adverse possession is illogical, irrational and wholly disappropriate because it
punish the actual owner for not taking any action within the limitation period. Whereas, it

12
Amarendra Pratap Singh v Tej Bahadur Prajapati
13
Gurdwara Sahib Vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014) 1 SCC 669
rewards the dishonest person who has illegally taken the possession of the property. Further,
the Apex Court directed the Union of India to reconsider the doctrine.14

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made certain important observations and reiterated to
have a fresh look at the law of adverse possession as made earlier in Hemaji Waghaji’s case
(supra) and the same are quoted here in below15: The Apex Court held that the doctrine of
Adverse Possession is borrowed from British laws and recommended the parliament to
consider abolishing or amend the law of Adverse Possession to provideprovides some relief
to the owner for their inaction. Adverse Possession allows the tort committer to gain a legal
title to the land where he is just a trespasser for 12 years. Furthermore, Apex Court
recommended some suitable amendments in the Law of Adverse Possession to the Union of
India, those are:

i) To extend the period of 30 to 50 years instead of 12 years.

ii) To pay market rates or some lesser amounts to the title-holder of the property.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of
Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.

14
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan((2009) 16 SCC 517)
15
State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2011(10) SCC 404
 Chapter 3: Relationship between HRs and Property and need of comparison with
international law
The idea of property calls to mind a variety of linguistic uses and meanings, depending on the
different forms of belonging recognised in the legal systems, in the course of history and in
the contemporary world.16 Property is traditionally a field of law where national law is
particularly influential and there is a great divide between common law and civil law
traditions. This variety of forms of property is also traceable in the history of civil law,
comparing the patrimonial nature of property accepted in the jus commune from the XII to
the XVIII centuries with the absolutist nature of property recognised by the codifications of
the XIX century.
The identification of property as a distinctive element of national States makes property a
field of law characterised by a major resistance to any process of harmonization of law, both
at European Union17 and international level. At the same time, property in terms of the right
to own, being a value common to all the western legal systems, led to the gradual formation
of an international property law. A main (but not exclusive) source18 of international property
law is the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (ECHR) that, in
Article 1 of the first protocol (hereafter A1P1), guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment
of possessions.
All these different forms of property do not coexist as watertight compartments, but they
contaminate each other so as to create the presence of different notions of property in the
same legal system where elements of continuity and discontinuity then come into being.
Along these lines there is a mutual influence between the international and the national ideas
of property that is particularly evident when looking at the influence of human rights law on
national property systems and vice versa. The following are two examples of this dynamic.

The power of exclusion is a common feature of ownership in all the western legal traditions,
even if exclusiveness is interpreted differently depending on the national property systems.
Indeed, in the civil law systems, exclusiveness is closely related to the absolute nature of
property, whereas in common law systems the exclusive power of the owner is compatible

16
Cf L Moccia ‘Basic Ways of Defining Property’ in Colloqui in ricordo di Michele Giorgianni (Esi 2007) 761-
782
17
Cf art 345 TFEU: “[…] Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of
property ownership”.
18
Cf JG Sparkling, ‘The Emergence of International Property Law (2012) 90 North Carolina L Rev 461-590,
who identify four different sources of international property law.
with a fragmentation of ownership.19
The need for the national courts to make the power of exclusion of the owner conform with
the international human rights law influenced the national definitions of exclusiveness both in
common and in civil law and it led scholars to theorise human rights as a reservoir of
entitlement.20 Along these lines, a human right could be the basis for opposing the power of
the owner to evict the trespasser when the eviction, although lawful, leads to a violation of a
human right of the occupier. Scholars have talked about human rights oriented property21 as a
transnational property right modelled on human rights jurisprudence.
The English case law developed on the right to respect for home shows a significant example
of this phenomenon. In the famous Pinnock22 case, the Supreme Court of the UK stated that a
public authority may deprive a person of his home only if the order of possession is lawful
according to domestic law and is proportional, according to Article 8 ECHR as interpreted by
the European Court of Human Rights. As a result, Article 8 ECHR, ‘[…] may, albeit in
exceptional cases, justify (in ascending order of effect) granting an extended period for
possession, suspending the order for possession on the happening of an event, or even
refusing an order altogether’.23 Lord Neuberger, in his opinion, commented: ‘Unencumbered
property rights, even where they are enjoyed by a public body such as a local authority, are of
real weight when it comes to proportionality’.24
The question of the use of Article 8 ECHR as a defence against eviction was raised in the
English courts also in relation to controversies between private parties. So in the Malik v.
Fassenfelt25 case the Court of Appeal did not exclude the use of Article 8 ECHR as a defence
against private landlords. In following cases, however, a more restrictive interpretation was
accepted. More recently, in the Macdonald v. Macdonald26 case, the Court of Appeal stated:
‘There is no “clear and constant” jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court that the

19
For the first references cf M Graziadei, ‘The Structure of Property Ownership and the Common Law/Civil
Law divide’ in M Graziadei, L Smith (eds) Comparative Property Law. Global Perspectives (EPL 2017) 71-99.
20
Cf K Gray ‘Land Law and Human Rights’ in L Tee (eds) Land Law: Issues, Debates, Policy (Willan 2013)
211-245, at 234; LF O’Mahony, ‘Eviction and The Public Interest: The Right to Respect for Home in English
Law’ in RP Malloy, M Diamond (eds) The Public Nature of Private Law (Routledge 2016) 89-132 at 92
21
A Goymour, ‘Proprietary Claims and Human Rights a “Reservoir of Entitlement”?’ (2006) 65 Cambridge
L 696; A Goymour, ‘Property and Housing’ in D Hoffman (eds) The impact of UK Human Rights on Private
Law (CUP 2011) 249-299, at 294; A Hudson (ed) New perspective on Property law, Human rights and the
Home (Cavendish 2012); on the topic cf JG Sprankling International Property law (OUP 2014) 123.
22
Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, see also Pinnock v UK App no 31673/1 (ECtHR, 13
September 2013); cf. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe ‘The Saga of Strasbourg and Social Housing’ in N Hopkins
(eds.) Modern Studies in Property Law (OUP 2013) 7, at 3.
23
Manchester City Council v Pinnock (n 13) para 62.
24
Ibid.
25
Malik v Fassenfelt [2013] EWCA Civ 798
26
Macdonald v Macdonald [2014] EWCA Civ 1049
proportionality test implied into Article 8(2) applies where there is a private
landlord’.27 Again, in the Hillingdon LBC v. Holley28 case, the Supreme Court of the UK
refused permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision according to which the
length of the period of residence was not sufficient to establish an Article 8 defence against
the prohibition of second succession to a secure tenancy established by English law.
The use of Article 8 ECHR as a defence against eviction has also been analysed by the civil
law courts.29 The Dutch Supreme Court30 stated that, on the basis of Article 8 ECHR, the
judge has to determine the proportionality of eviction. The French Conseil
d’Etat31 established that the use of force to evict a person from a house could be denied by the
competent authority when it infringes upon the dignity of the person. This judgement was
criticised by scholars who highlighted the existence of two different meanings of property in
the French system: traditional property based on Article 544 of the French civil code and
property as patrimony, based on the use and access to patrimony.32 The protection of human
rights may be the basis for a right of property according to the latter meaning, by a person
who has no legal title to ownership according to national law.
These examples show how the domestic idea of exclusiveness is influenced by the
international human rights jurisprudence, but they are also evidence of the impact of the
national courts’ interpretation of the right to respect for home, as stated by Article 8 ECHR.

27
Supra Note 25
28
Holley v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1052
29
The effects of art 8 on the owner’s power of eviction according to domestic law are particularly evident in the
jurisprudence on the protection of the Roman lifestyle, for the first references cf P Kenna, D Gailiute ‘Growing
Coordination in Housing Rights Jurisprudence in Europe?’ (2013) 6 European Human Rights L Rev 606-614
30
Hoge Raad 28-10-2011 (2013) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 153, on the point cf M Vols, M Kiehl, J Sidoli del
Ceno, ‘Human Rights and Protection against Eviction in Anti-social Behaviour Cases in the Netherlands and
Germany’ (2015) 2 European J of Comparative L and Governance 156-181.
31
Conseil d’État Mme. C, no 343051 (15th May 2013)
32
Cf V Donier ‘Expulsion locative, droit au logement et référé-liberté: réflexions sur quelques incohérences,
Note sous CE, ordonnance, 5 november 2014, Mme C, no 385431 (2015) Revue de Droit Sanitaire et Social
170.
 Chapter 4: Case Law
The recent Supreme Court Judgment in case of Vidya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh and Ors, Civil Appeal nos. 6061 OF 2020, has restored the faith of the Indian
Citizen in the Judiciary as a saviour of human rights, where the State Government was trying
to derogate the rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court laid down an important principle
that, a Welfare State cannot take the benefit arising out of the Doctrine of Adverse
Possession.

The Judgment provided the protection to citizens from State adversely taking the possession
of the property of a citizen. The court stated that forcibly taking possession of a person's
private property is a violation of fundamentals of human rights and also Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. It also stated that the State cannot invoke the benefits of the Doctrine of
Adverse Possession and claim the title over such a forcibly acquired property without paying
any compensation.

Facts:
Vidya Devi, an eighty years old lady whose property was forcefully acquired by the State
Government of Himachal Pradesh in 1967-68, for the purpose of the road construction. Road
Construction was duly determined as the Public Purpose, but as the Vidya Devi was illiterate
and unaware of the compensation payable to her, nothing was paid to her in return.

In 2004, a similar case of Anakh Singh & Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, wherein
the land of Anakh Singh was forcibly acquired and he approached the High Court, the court
asked the Government to acquire the land according to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA
Act) and accordingly compensate the aggrieved party with reasonable amount under the LA
Act.

Knowing about the possibility of the compensation, in 2010, Vidya Devi (the appellant) filed
the writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, for compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Government opposed the Writ Petition, stating that the property has been under the
adverse possession of the State for the past 42 years and thereby, the State claimed the title
over the property.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and asked the appellant to file a civil suit for
compensation as already a road has been constructed on the disputed land.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court referred to Article 300A and stated that private property cannot be
acquired unless by the due process of law.

Further Supreme Court said it was shocked by the Arguments of the State Government that
the property was in its adverse possession. And held that, the State being a Welfare State
governed by the rule of law can neither use the doctrine of adverse possession nor it can
arrogate itself a status beyond what has been conferred by the Constitution.

The court emphasized the fact that the woman was illiterate and a widow and for nearly half a
century divested from her own property without any lawful authority.

The Court invoked extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordered the
State government to pay compensation along with the statutory benefits including the
solatium within the period of 8 weeks, as a case of a deemed acquisition.

Further, the court directed the Respondent State to pay the legal cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs, to the
appellant.

Comment
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the State Government cannot derogate the rights of its
citizens. Further, under the Article 300A can only be acquired by the authority of law, i.e. by
the due procedure established in the Law. The Property should have been acquired by the
provisions laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and reasonable compensation
should be paid under the same.

Therefore, the Supreme Court assured that the rule of law will prevail and a Welfare State
cannot take the benefits of the Doctrine of Adverse possession. The State needs to acquire the
property by giving reasonable and lawful consideration. This Judgment would be beneficial
for the people who are unaware of the possibility of compensation against the land
acquisition and will further ensure that a Welfare State never demeans the rights of the citizen
over his/her property.
 Chapter 5: Conclusion
The doctrine of adverse possession means that a person can acquire ownership of a property
if they have possessed the same property for a certain, uninterrupted period of time, as
required by the laws of the country in which the property is located. In other words, it says
that land should be owned by those who use it. It ostensibly straddles the competing rights
and interests of different persons – those who stand to lose and those who stand to
gain. Adverse possession is a common law doctrine with the underlying philosophy that “land
use has historically been favored over disuse, and that therefore he who uses land is preferred
in the law to he who does not, even though the latter is the rightful owner”. This definition is
useful to keep in mind as the role of adverse possession as contemplated by this article is not
to suggest that owners should be arbitrarily deprived of a right to their property. Rather, what
is suggested is that if the property has been effectively abandoned by the title owner for a
significant period of time, then the possessor of the property may be in a position to assert
their right to housing by virtue of its use and occupation. This definition emphasizes the best
use of land, which is a valuable approach when considering the finite nature of property. At
the same time, however, viewing adverse possession through this lens, rather than a rights-
based lens, may take away from the potential of using adverse possession as a mechanism for
enforcing or bolstering human rights.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. AA Berle, 'Property, Production and Revolution' (1965) 65 Columbia Law Review 1

2. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". un.org. Article 17. 1) Everyone has the
right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
3. Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD
Publishing. pp. 141–142
4. Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 367.
5. The Limitation Act 1963