State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Over Land Used For Vaishno Devi Pilgrim Facilities, Must Acquire Or Return It: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over private land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession against its own citizens and must either acquire such land in accordance with law or return it.The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by landowners seeking relief against the continued occupation of their...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over private land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession against its own citizens and must either acquire such land in accordance with law or return it.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by landowners seeking relief against the continued occupation of their land, which was in possession of the state and currently being used for public purposes related to pilgrims visiting Mata Vaishno Devi Temple, without acquisition or compensation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, while allowing the petition, observed: “State being a welfare state cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, allows a trespasser to gain legal title over such property. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens”.
The Bench accordingly directed the State to “initiate the process of acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners, which is in their occupation forthwith and to conclude the process of acquisition and payment of compensation in terms of the law with respect to land acquisition, which is in vogue at present, within a period of six months.”
The petitioners had approached the High Court, contending that their land had been taken over and was being utilised by the authorities for purposes connected with the movement and facilities of pilgrims visiting Mata Vaishno Devi. It was their case that despite continuous occupation and use of the land by the State, no acquisition proceedings had been initiated and no compensation had been paid.
The respondents, on the other hand, sought to justify their possession over the land, inter alia, by relying upon long-standing occupation and the doctrine of adverse possession.
The Court, upon examining the pleadings, noted that the ownership of the petitioners over the subject land was not denied by the respondents and that the respondents were opposing the claim primarily on the ground of delay and laches.
It further recorded that the petitioners' case that their predecessors had permitted temporary use of the land by the respondents had not been denied, and that it was an admitted position that the land had neither been acquired nor any compensation paid to the petitioners.
The Court then examined the property right and observed that, though it is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, while further stating that “this provision ensures that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law”.
The Court further added that “it reflects the principle that ownership, once legally established, cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by the State or any other authority”, and that “a person whose ownership is duly recorded in official records enjoys legal recognition and protection, and such ownership carries with it the assurance of security against unlawful dispossession”.
A legally recorded owner, the Court stressed, “therefore, cannot be divested of his property without adherence to due process of law”.
The Court further held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the plea of adverse possession raised by the respondents was untenable and liable to be rejected.
It also considered the plea of delay and laches raised by the respondents and examined the judgment in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1987). The Court noted that the rule of delay and laches is not rigid and cannot be applied in a straitjacket manner, and that even if there has been delay, it does not deprive the petitioners of their right to assert their claim over the land which is in possession of the respondents.
It also took note of a Division Bench judgment of the High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, the plea of delay and laches was rejected, and directions were issued to initiate acquisition proceedings.
On the cumulative assessment of the material on record and the legal position, the Court held that the petitioners had been deprived of their property without legal sanction and without due process of law and that the objections raised by the respondents were devoid of merit.
The High Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and issued directions to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners, which is under their occupation.
The Court further directed that in the event the respondents do not intend to retain the land, they shall return the same to the petitioners.
Case Title: Pushpa Devi & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)