The Supreme Court, drawing inspiration from the precedent set in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (2000) 5 SCC 652, emphasized that when disputed land, contended to be acquired through adverse possession, is owned by the government, the Court's scrutiny must be more thorough and effective.

In a recent matter, a bench led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol addressed an appeal brought forth by the Government of Kerala against a Kerala High Court ruling in a second appeal. The case revolved around individuals asserting ownership of government land via adverse possession, prompting the Court to ascertain if the claimants had legally established their ownership through such adverse possession.

Background Summary:

The subject in question was 30 cents of land in Kerala, alleged to belong to the government. Joseph claimed ownership through adverse possession dating back to 1940. In 1983, Joseph's legal representatives filed a suit seeking an injunction against the State's eviction efforts. The District Court, in 1995, overturned the Trial Court's decision in favor of the state. The High Court, on appeal by the plaintiffs, reinstated the original verdict.

Regarding adverse possession, the Court, after referencing prior judgments, outlined the following principle:

"Possession must be open, unambiguous, continuous, and in opposition to the other party's claim or possession; all three fundamental requisites must coexist - nec vi, meaning adequately continuous; nec clam, meaning sufficiently public; and nec precario, meaning adverse to a rival's claim, involving denial of title and knowledge."

The Court noted that the testimonies relied upon by the claimants "do not meet the criteria of a 'more serious and effective' inquiry."

In this context, the Court emphasized that mere witness statements do not constitute substantial and concrete evidence, as these statements can lack precision.

Click here to read/download Judgment

"Substantial and concrete evidence, as necessary, would require the claimants to present some form of evidence of possession beyond vague statements. It is also evident from the aforementioned discussion that prolonged possession does not automatically confer the right of adverse possession. Speculations, conjectures, and approximations cannot serve as a basis for transferring land rights from the State to someone who had no such rights," clarified the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

In simpler terms, a person asserting adverse possession must substantiate their claim with strong evidence, and vague assertions will not suffice. Additionally, the Court highlighted that established legal principles dictate that a prolonged period of possession alone is inadequate to establish adverse possession rights. This must be coupled with "animus possidendi" - the intent to possess or, in essence, the intention to dispossess the rightful owner. In the absence of this intent, the Court will not validate a claim of adverse possession.

Given these insights, the Court rejected the claimants' bid for adverse possession, affirming:

"Speculations, conjectures, and approximations cannot form the foundation for divesting the State of its land rights and transferring them to an individual who possesses no such rights."

Case Reference: Government of Kerala & Anr. V. Joseph and Others, Civil Appeal 3142 Of 2010