Adverse possession cannot be ground to claim title to government land: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that people settling on government land cannot claim any title rights to such land only on the ground of adverse possession [Shakeel Ahmad and ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors]..Adverse possession refers to a principle in property law whereby a person possessing another's land may get title to such land after possessing it for a long time.A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta observed on March 22 that such a ground cannot be invoked by residents in Akbar Nagar, Lucknow to claim any title rights to government-owned land. The Court made the observation in a case concerning demolitions in Akbar Nagar. About 15,000 residents of Akbar Nagar are set to be affected by demolitions planned on the Kukrail riverbank..Representing the residents, advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that it has been over four decades since the residents, who now face eviction, started living on the said land. "We have been living for 45 years. They gave us electricity connections," he argued. The Court, however, indicated that it was not persuaded that this was sufficient ground to claim any permanent rights on government land. "Unauthorised constructions will be there since you do not own the land. But there can be no title by adverse possession without showing animus (a specific intent to control the land) ... We cannot accept such title, sorry ... How many suits for adverse possession have succeeded?" Justice Khanna replied during the March 22 hearing. Nevertheless, the Court made it clear that people living on such land for decades cannot be thrown out overnight without alternative accommodation being offered..The Court was hearing an appeal against a March 6 Allahabad High Court order that had directed residents affected by an ongoing relocation project of Akbar Nagar in Lucknow to vacate the disputed premises by the end of the month.A division bench of the High Court had observed that the residents were unauthorised occupants on government land who, at best, could press for an alternative place to live. After the High Court was told that these settlers could avail rehabilitation measures being offered by the State, it had on March 6 disposed of a batch of petitions filed by the residents with the following direction:"The applications under the rehabilitation scheme shall be filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons within a period of two weeks from today and simultaneously, the respondents shall proceed to make allotment of flats for rehabilitation and the entire process of shifting be completed positively by 31.3.2024."This decision was challenged by the settlers before the Supreme Court. .The top court admitted the appeals to the limited extent of granting time till April 15 to vacate the premises, and for the Uttar Pradesh government to definitively provide alternative accommodation to the settlers.The matter is listed to be heard again by the Supreme Court in April..Senior Counsel Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the appellants (residents/ settlers). Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the respondent-authorities..On a related note, in another batch of writ petitions filed by Akbar Nagar residents earlier, a single judge of the Allahabad High Court had in, December 2023, stayed the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)’s decision to carry out large scale demolitions in Akbar Nagar-I and II areas. At the time, the Court directed LDA to first initiate the resettlement process for those going to be affected before carrying out any demolition. Justice Pankaj Bhatia had also questioned the “tearing hurry” being shown to demolish the properties of persons belonging to disadvantaged sections without the implementation of a scheme for their rehabilitation. The High Court had noted that though the petitioners have been in occupation of the land without any title in their favour, government roads have been constructed in the area and other municipal services were being provided to them with the passage of time.It had further observed that some residents were also paying municipal taxes and that a school was being run in the vicinity. .[Read order]