The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a person claiming ownership of land under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act cannot rely on adverse possession. The Court clarified that possession recognized under the Act must be lawful, continuous, and supported by valid legal rights, rather than being adverse to the true owner.
The bench was hearing a petition in which the petitioner sought ownership rights over a piece of land, asserting long-term possession under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. The Court, however, noted that the petitioner’s claim was based on adverse possession—an assertion that contradicts the lawful ownership of the true titleholder. It observed that adverse possession, by its nature, involves possession that is hostile to the interests of the actual owner and cannot be converted into lawful ownership under statutory provisions meant to recognize legitimate occupation.
The Court emphasized that the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act aims to regulate land rights, revenue collection, and maintenance of ownership records based on lawful occupation and valid title. It is not intended to confer ownership rights on persons who occupy land without authority or in defiance of ownership rights vested in others. Allowing claims based on adverse possession within the framework of this Act, the Court warned, would amount to legitimizing unlawful encroachments and undermining the sanctity of property rights.
In its reasoning, the Court also highlighted the distinction between ownership claims under the Limitation Act and those under the Land Revenue Act. While the Limitation Act allows an occupant to claim ownership through adverse possession after uninterrupted and hostile occupation for a statutory period, such a claim must be established strictly in accordance with judicial precedents and cannot be imported into the framework of the Land Revenue Act, which only recognizes lawful possession.
The bench underscored that land ownership and title cannot be transferred merely on the strength of self-serving statements or revenue entries that lack a lawful foundation. Revenue records, it stated, are not documents of title; they merely reflect possession and administrative classification. The rightful ownership must be proven through valid legal documents and recognized processes under the law.
The Court also warned revenue officials to exercise due diligence while recording possession details in official records. It directed that entries reflecting unlawful or disputed possession should not be treated as evidence of ownership.
In conclusion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that property rights must stem from lawful possession and valid title, not from encroachment or long-term adverse occupation. The judgment reinforces the principle that no person can derive legal benefit from wrongful possession and that the Land Revenue Act cannot be used as a tool to validate illegal claims over property.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.