State Can't Claim Adverse Possession Over Citizens' Land: P&H High Court Directs Compensation For Land Used Without Acquisition

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to claim ownership over private land, emphasizing that such a plea is incompatible with its role as a welfare State. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209]

It thus directed the Haryana Government to pay compensation for a private land used for a distributary without acquisition.

Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "the State being a 'welfare State', is expected to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. The State cannot be permitted to become a 'squatter' over the lawful possessory and ownership rights of its citizens. The State can neither be permitted to perfect its possessory rights into ownership title over the land to grab the property of its own citizens."

The Court added that, the State cannot take away the land for carving out distributary or for making it pucca by brick/cement lining without acquiring its possession in due process of law. The State is expected to make payment to lawful owners of the land as compensation.

It further clarified that, "The State cannot encroach upon or take away the possession of the land owned by the plaintiffs without any notice or without making compensation of the said land, which in the present case is being used for running of distributary for irrigation purposes to the landholders."

As the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the suit property by invoking the principle of adverse possession, for this reason the learned trial Court and first Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendants have become owners of suit property by adverse possession and that the suit is filed beyond period of limitation of 12 years, thereby is barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the bench said.

The Court was hearing a Regular Second Appeal filed by landowners, setting aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court which had dismissed their suit for possession.

The appellants represented by Senior Advocate Kshitij Sharma had claimed ownership and possession over 119 kanals of land in village Banmandori, Fatehabad. A portion measuring 7 kanals was being used by the State for a water distributary. According to the appellants, the land was neither acquired nor was any compensation paid, and the State had illegally encroached upon it while cementing the distributary.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the distributary had existed since 1960, and that the plaintiffs had never objected to its construction or subsequent improvements. It further contended that it had acquired ownership by way of adverse possession, as its possession was open, continuous, and hostile.

Findings of Lower Courts

Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the State had perfected its title through adverse possession and that the claim was barred by limitation.

The High Court disagreed with the findings of the courts below, holding that the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession to appropriate private property. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that the right to property is a constitutional and human right under Article 300-A, and cannot be taken away without authority of law.

The Court noted that while the distributary served a public purpose and had existed for decades, the State had failed to follow due process by not acquiring the land or paying compensation.

It found that the "defendants took away the land of the plaintiffs for making the distributary pucca without acquiring the same and without making any payments of the said land to the plaintiffs."

"Since no payment is made to the landowners/plaintiffs qua 7 Kanals of land, their land is encroached upon without any notice and without making any payment of the said land," the judge said.

The Court said, no period of limitation applied to a suit for possession based on title when the land is in illegal possession of the State.

In the light of the above, the Court "directed to make compensation at fair market price of the suit property measuring 7 Kanals bearing Khasra Nos. 16//24/2, 33//4, 5, 32//1,2,3,4, situated in village Banmandori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, as per Jamabandi Ex.P2 to the plaintiffs regarding use of this land along with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest etc. within a period of three months from today by treating it as a case of “deemed acquisition”."

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Senior Advocate (through v.c.) with Mr. Tammna Banwala, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. 

Title: Ranbir Singh and others v. Haryana State through Collector, Fatehabad

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tammna Banwala, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Click here to read order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209