Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011
In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh
Kumar and others reported in (2011) 10
Supreme Court Cases 404 the Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court FA No.270 of 1996 dt.09-10-2014
32
Court has held that people are often astonished to
learn that a trespasser may take the right of a
building or land from the true owner in certain
conditions and such theft is even authorized by
law. The theory of adverse possession is also
perceived by the general public as a dishonest
way to obtain title to property. The mistake by
landowners or negligence on their part should
never transfer their property rights to a
wrongdoer, who never paid valuable
consideration for such interest. In the said
decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Cases has
also held that a person pleading adverse
possession has to establish all facts necessary to
establish adverse possession. No equity would
arise in favour of the claimant by adverse
possession."
L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash on 21 April, 2009
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
L.N.Aswathama & Anr. vs. P. Prakash, 2009(4) PLJR 111
Supreme Court held that "long and continuous possession by itself
would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive
possession or possession without animus possidendi. To establish
claim of title by prescription, possession of claimant must be physical,
actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to true
owner for a period exceeding twelve years." In the present case, as
Patna High Court FA No.270 of 1996 dt.09-10-2014
33
discussed above, there is dispute of possession between the parties
since long. In the year 1971, the property was attached, therefore, it
appears that there was interruption in the possession whether it was in
possession of plaintiffs or in possession of defendants.
Mandal Revenue Officer vs Goundla Venkaiah & Anr on 6 January, 2010
In 2010 AIR SCW 977(Mandal Revenue Officer
v. Goundla Venkaiah and anr.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that "where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of
public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse
possession, court is duty bound to act with greater seriousness, care
and circumspection. Any laxity in this regard may result in
destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and give
upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorized occupants or land
grabbers." In the present case, at our hand, it is the land of a
particular sect i.e. plaintiff no.2. It is not an individual land. Plaintiff
no.1 is only a caretaker or manager called Mahanth. The plaintiff
no.1 and/his father is fighting for the land since 1952 with different
persons. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no interference of
possession or obstruction by the plaintiff no.1 on behalf of plaintiff
no.2. However, the defendants are occupying the land illegally.