Expressing grave concern over the interference by the government agencies, especially the police in settling property disputes by restoring possession to a party without its title being decided by the court of law, the Supreme Court on Friday recommended the Centre to revisit the law on “adverse possession” to protect the property rights of individuals.
“The doctrine of adverse possession has troubled a great many legal minds. We are clearly of the opinion that time has come for change,” a bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma said while dealing with a case from Haryana in which the state police was found guilty of filing a suit of “adverse possession” of a small plot of approximately 300 sq metres in Gurgaon.
To prevent such misuse of power by the government agencies, “in our considered views, there is an urgent need for a fresh look of the entire law on adverse possession,” the bench said.
As per the doctrine of adverse possession the person who is in the possession of a disputed property will continue to hold it till the court decides the title. The top court found that land and property grabbers had been taking advantage of this provision of the law by taking control of the disputed properties and enjoying it for long years till a final decision by the courts.
“We recommend the Union of India to immediately consider and seriously deliberate either abolition of the law of adverse possession and in the alternate to make suitable amendments in the law,” the bench said while directing the top court registry to send its verdict to the law secretary for taking appropriate steps in accordance with the law.
The top court said the law of adverse possession often had left the true owners “astonished” how a trespasser could take over the right of their property without being decided by the court.
“The theory of adverse possession is also perceived by the general public as a dishonest way to obtain title to property,” the top court said adding that legal brains had been repeatedly arguing how a “wrongdoer” could be allowed to get hold of the property of a real owner merely due to his legal mistakes or negligence.