High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/2040/1992allowed

Smadh Sarbhanji v. Range Forest Officer, Seonsar & ORS.

2024-11-27Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal8 pages

#$% &'' ()

#* "

+,,#$% -''

''..

//($)

2 '

'' .#$"

$) % 34

5 4

(+)1(/ (+67 #1$"%

! " "!"

"# %! &

"# '

! !! & !"

! )! !!* !

+ # ! !# ! $ ! !, !!

-*!

$ !! $!

animus possidendi

sine qua non .!"

! !,

!"! !!! !#!"

! . # $

#$!

023*021 (

!# !"

# !"

+ ! !" ! 032

01'*01/ % 5# Shisham Eucalyptus !

$! !" !"

!* "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP 2.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present suit? OPD

3. Whether no notice has been issued upon the defendants before filing the present suit? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is false and frivolous? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the defendants have become owner of suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD

8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

9. Relief."

!,"

. #"1+ "

+),!

.( ), % '

! 6#! # #!#- ! ' '

6#!

# & ! 86 5*'

86 5*/ 01'*01/ ' /

#$!

093*

& :86 *4 86 *1;

<jumla malkan= :$"

! >!";

#$!

02?* 02

#!"

#! @" '? '?' '?/ A!#

' 4

! !"

!! % 5# 86 5*'

86 5*/

! % 5# 01'*01/

'Banjar'

;

$(/9, ($"

,+1,#$% /

$ ! $.

)!!! !"! & $

/ '

% !"

# ! !

! !$

! "

# / / $%& %'&( '& %

"!) *

.!"

! ! & )! 6#! !

.! % !

! ! ##

#!! "! !"

/ 4 #

6#! 5+

# & !

% 5#

01'* 01/ 5# !

! !

* 6#!!

#! # !!

#!!"

! ! #$

)! % 5#

! ! / 3 ( !

# ! ! <

! ,=

/ 1 ( #

. $ !

## !

! 02?*02

)! "!

! /? ?0 029 / 9 # !! animus possidendi

sine qua non !#!"

!$!!

; !

)! ##

! !$ +

! .

! # #

! !

)! ! / 2 !

$ !

# % +,-(.%($

))!) "

!!B ! !# !

! 43

$!"

#! . !

6 * "45. If the protectors of law become the grabbers of the property (land and building), then, people will be left with no protection and there would be a total anarchy in the entire country. It is indeed a very disturbing and dangerous trend. In our considered view, it must be arrested without further loss of time in the larger public interest. No Government Department, Public Undertaking, and much less the Police Department should be permitted to perfect the title of the land or building by invoking the provisions of adverse possession and grab the property of its own citizens in the manner that has been done in this case."

/ 0

!#! &,/%0%+$12 &%& %

! *3

# "!

!! !

!!B

! !

$ !"

# # !"

! !

# !"

&!! @!"

! /?? &!! (!

< !

* "12.2 The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right 2 in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article.

12.3 To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, wherein this Court held that:

"6. ... Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid."

12.4 In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, this Court held that:

"21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed."

12.5. In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: "30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. "Property must be secured, else liberty cannot

- subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists."

12.6 In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,7 this Court held as follows :

"48. ...In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation."

12.7 In this case, the Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967.

12.8 The contention of the State that the Appellant or her predecessors had "orally" consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the Appellant of her property by the State.

12.9 In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

12.10 This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension.

12.11 We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in

= continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to "adverse" possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case."

/ ?

7 "!

"# ! %+,&%$21%&%1%%&!( &% !

)4+

! !

+,,#$% C!"

! !!

"# %! 4 '

#! !! ! ! -):

5 4

Ay Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No