Adverse possession: Punjab and Haryana HC gives ownership to Yamuna Nagar family in 40-year land dispute

Surjit Singh had first approached the court in 1986, claiming ownership through adverse possession. He said he and his forefathers had been cultivating the land for more than 35 years, and that their possession had been continuous and open, without paying rent or facing objection from the recorded owner, Kehar Singh.

Revenue records since 1954-55 described the family’s occupation as “bila lagan bawajah kabza”, meaning possession without rent. Kehar Singh, the original owner, was marked as an absentee who had never collected rent or participated in the consolidation proceedings held in 1953 and 1962.

Justice Gupta observed that under the Limitation Act, ownership by adverse possession is perfected after 12 years of continuous and hostile possession. He cited the requirement that the possession must be without force, without secrecy, and without permission. The court noted that rent payment — a key factor in proving tenancy — was missing in this case, showing that the possession was not under any lease.

The dispute began after Kehar Singh died in 1985, when his relatives, Mahinder Singh and Harnek Singh, obtained mutation of the land based on an alleged will. Harnek Singh, a retired revenue official, was accused of misusing his position to secure official entries.

The trial court held that Surjit Singh’s possession had become full ownership by 1966, and declared the mutation and subsequent transactions invalid. But the appellate court overturned this finding, saying he had failed to prove when his occupation became hostile.

Justice Gupta, restoring the trial court’s order, said the appellate court had ignored key evidence. He pointed out that revenue entries for decades consistently showed Surjit Singh’s possession without rent or interruption and that the alleged disputes over tree removal came much later — long after his ownership had already matured in law.

Rejecting the defendants’ arguments that adverse possession is outdated, the judge cited a 2019 Supreme Court ruling affirming that continuous and open possession for over 12 years can still confer ownership under Indian law.

Holding that Surjit Singh’s possession met the legal test, the High Court declared the mutation of 1985 and a 1991 consent decree as void. The judgment emphasised the importance of consistent revenue records in establishing ownership through possession — a principle that could influence similar agrarian disputes in Punjab and Haryana.

Senior advocates M S Khaira and Jaswinder Singh appeared for the appellants, while M L Sarin and Himani Sarin represented the respondents.