{"id":228249,"date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-27T22:01:33","modified_gmt":"2017-09-27T16:31:33","slug":"state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                                 REPORTABLE\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\nPETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. \n\n28034\/2011\n\n                  (Arising out of CC 9038\/2010)\n\n\n\n\nState of Haryana                                        ...Petitioner \n\n\n\n                         Versus\n\n\nMukesh Kumar & Ors.                                   ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Dalveer Bhandari, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    People   are   often   astonished   to   learn   that   a <\/p>\n
trespasser may take the title of a building or land from <\/p>\n
the   true   owner   in   certain   conditions   and   such   theft   is <\/p>\n
even authorized by law.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The  theory of  adverse possession is also perceived <\/p>\n
by the general public as a dishonest way to obtain title <\/p>\n
to   property.     Property   right   advocates   argue   that <\/p>\n
mistakes   by   landowners   or   negligence   on   their   part <\/p>\n
should   never   transfer   their   property   rights   to   a <\/p>\n
                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
wrongdoer,   who   never   paid   valuable   consideration   for <\/p>\n
such an interest.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The government itself may acquire land by adverse <\/p>\n
possession.  Fairness dictates and commands that if the <\/p>\n
government   can   acquire   title   to   private   land   through <\/p>\n
adverse possession, it should be able to lose title under <\/p>\n
the same circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
4.    We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   State   of <\/p>\n
Haryana.     We   do   not   deem   it   appropriate   to   financially <\/p>\n
burden   the   respondents   by   issuing   notice   in   this   Special <\/p>\n
Leave   Petition.   A   very   vital   question   which   arises   for <\/p>\n
consideration in this petition is whether the State, which is <\/p>\n
in   charge   of   protection   of   life,   liberty   and   property   of   the <\/p>\n
people can be permitted to grab the land and property of its <\/p>\n
own   citizens   under   the   banner   of   the   plea   of   adverse <\/p>\n
possession?\n<\/p>\n
5.    Brief   facts,   relevant   to   dispose   of   this   Special   Leave <\/p>\n
Petition are recapitulated as under:\n<\/p>\n
6.    The State of Haryana had filed a Civil Suit through the <\/p>\n
Superintendent   of   Police,   Gurgaon,   seeking   a   relief   of <\/p>\n
declaration   to   the   effect   that   it   has   acquired   the   rights   of <\/p>\n
                                                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
ownership   by   way   of   adverse   possession   over   land <\/p>\n
measuring   8   biswas   comprising   khewat   no.   34,   khata   no.\n<\/p>\n
56, khasra no.  3673\/452 situated in  the  revenue  estate of <\/p>\n
Hidayatpur Chhavni, Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The   other   prayer   in   the   suit   was   that   the   sale   deed <\/p>\n
dated   26th  March,   1990,   mutation   no.   3690   dated   22nd <\/p>\n
November, 1990 as well as judgment and decree dated 19th <\/p>\n
May,   1992,   passed   in   Civil   Suit   No.   368   dated   9 th  March, <\/p>\n
1991 are liable to be set aside.   As a consequential relief, it <\/p>\n
was   also   prayed   that   the   defendants   be   perpetually <\/p>\n
restrained   from   interfering   with   the   peaceful   possession   of <\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   (petitioner   herein)   over   the   suit   land.     For   the  <\/p>\n
sake   of   convenience   we   are   referring   the   petitioner   as   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.\n<\/p>\n
8.     In   the   written   statement,   the   defendants   raised   a <\/p>\n
number   of   preliminary   objections   pertaining   to   estoppel, <\/p>\n
cause of action and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  It was <\/p>\n
specifically   denied   that   the   plaintiff   ever   remained   in <\/p>\n
possession of the suit property for the last 55 years.  It was  <\/p>\n
submitted that the disputed property was still lying vacant.\n<\/p>\n
However, the plaintiff recently occupied it by using force and <\/p>\n
                                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
thereafter have also raised a boundary wall of police line.  It <\/p>\n
was   denied   in   the   written   statement   that   the   plaintiff <\/p>\n
acquired   right   of   ownership   by   way   of   adverse   possession <\/p>\n
qua   property   in   question.     The   defendants   prayed   for <\/p>\n
dismissal of suit and by way of a counter claim also prayed <\/p>\n
for a decree for possession qua suit property be passed.\n<\/p>\n
9.    The Trial Court framed the following Issues in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      1. Whether   plaintiffs   have   become   owner   of   disputed <\/p>\n
         property by way of adverse possession? OPP<\/p>\n
      2. Whether   sale   deed   26.3.1990   and   mutation   no.\n<\/p>\n
         3690   dated   22.11.90   are   null   and   void   as   alleged?\n<\/p>\n
         OPP<\/p>\n
      3. Whether   judgment   and   decree   dated   19.05.92 <\/p>\n
         passed in civil suit no. 368 dated 9.3.91 is liable to <\/p>\n
         be set aside alleged? OPP<\/p>\n
      4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable <\/p>\n
         in the present form? OPP<\/p>\n
      5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the <\/p>\n
         present suit? OPP<\/p>\n
      6. Whether   the   plaintiff   has   no   cause   of   action   to   file <\/p>\n
         the present suit? OPP<\/p>\n
      7. Whether   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff   is   bad   for   mis-\n<\/p>\n
         joinder of necessary parties? OPP<\/p>\n
      8. Whether defendants no. 1 to 4 are rightful owners of <\/p>\n
         disputed   property   on   the   basis   of   impugned   sale <\/p>\n
         deed dated 23.6.1990 registered on 3.7.1990? OPP<\/p>\n
                                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
       9. Whether   defendants   are   entitled   for   possession   of <\/p>\n
          disputed property? OPP<\/p>\n
       10.    Relief.\n<\/p>\n
10.    Issue   No.   1   which   relates   to   adverse   possession   and <\/p>\n
issue   No.   4   pertaining   to   maintainability   were   decided <\/p>\n
together.     According   to   the   Trial   Court,   the   plaintiff   has <\/p>\n
failed   to   prove   the   possession   over   the   disputed   property  <\/p>\n
because   the   plaintiff   could   not   produce   any   documentary <\/p>\n
evidence   to   prove   this.     On   the   contrary,   revenue   records <\/p>\n
placed on the file shows that the defendants are the owners <\/p>\n
in   possession   of   disputed   property.     The   Trial   Court <\/p>\n
observed  that  possession  of  State,  as claimed in  the  plaint <\/p>\n
for   a   continuous   period   of   55   years,   stood   falsified   by   the  <\/p>\n
documents issued by the officials of the State.\n<\/p>\n
11.    The   Trial   Court   also   observed   that   despite   claiming <\/p>\n
adverse possession, there was no pleading qua denial of title <\/p>\n
of   the   defendants   by   the   plaintiff,   so   much   so   that   the <\/p>\n
specific   day   when   the   alleged   possession   of   State   allegedly <\/p>\n
became   adverse   against   the   defendants   has   not   been <\/p>\n
mentioned   in   order   to   establish   the   starting   point   of <\/p>\n
limitation could be ascertained.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
12.    The Trial Court relied on the judgment of this Court in <\/p>\n
S.M.   Karim     v.     Mst.   Bibi   Sakina  AIR<\/a>   1964   SC   1254 <\/p>\n
wherein   this  Court   has   laid   down   that   the   adverse <\/p>\n
possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and <\/p>\n
extent   and   a   plea   is   required   at   the   least   to   show   when <\/p>\n
possession becomes adverse. The Court also held that long  <\/p>\n
possession is not necessarily adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
13.      The   Trial   Court  also   relied  on   a   decision   of   the   High <\/p>\n
Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Bhim Singh &  <\/p>\n
Ors.       v.     Zile   Singh   &   Ors.,    AIR<\/a>   2006   P   and   H   195, <\/p>\n
wherein it was stated that no declaration can be sought by a <\/p>\n
plaintiff   with   regard   to   the   ownership   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
14.    The   Trial   Court   came   to   specific   conclusion   that <\/p>\n
despite the fact that the possession of the plaintiff over the  <\/p>\n
disputed land is admitted on behalf of defendants, Issue No. <\/p>\n
1  stand   decided  against   the   plaintiff.    It  was   held  that  the  <\/p>\n
suit   of   the   plaintiff   claiming   ownership   by   way   of   adverse <\/p>\n
possession is not maintainable.   Consequently, Issue No. 1 <\/p>\n
was decided against the plaintiff and Trial No. 4 was decided  <\/p>\n
in favour of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
15.    The   Trial   Court   decided   Issue   Nos.   2,   3,   5   and   6  <\/p>\n
together   and   came   to   the   definite   conclusion   that   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   failed   to   prove   its   possession   over   the   property   in <\/p>\n
question.     It   was   also   held   that   the   plaintiff   had   no  locus  <\/p>\n
standi  to   challenge   the   validity   of   the   impugned   sale   deed, <\/p>\n
mutation   as   well   as   the   judgment   and   decree   because   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   was   neither   the   owner   nor   in   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
property in dispute.  Consequently, the plaintiff had no right  <\/p>\n
to say that the impugned sale deed dated 26th  March, 1990 <\/p>\n
was a sham transaction and the suit of mutation dated 22nd <\/p>\n
November,   1990   and,   thereafter,   the   judgment   and   decree <\/p>\n
dated 19th  May, 1992 passed in Civil Suit No. 386 dated 9th <\/p>\n
March, 1991 are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
16.    The   Trial   Court   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   having   no   right   or   title   in   the   suit   property   has <\/p>\n
neither  locus   standi  nor   cause   of   action   to   file   the   present <\/p>\n
suit.   Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff,  <\/p>\n
whereas,  Issue  Nos.  5  and  6  were  decided in   favour  of  the <\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
17.    Regarding Issue Nos. 8 and 9, the Trial Court observed <\/p>\n
that once it is held that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are owners of  <\/p>\n
                                                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
the   disputed   property,   which   is   presently   in   possession   of <\/p>\n
the plaintiff without any right, they (defendants) are entitled <\/p>\n
to   its   possession.     Hence,   Issue   Nos.   8   and   9   were   also <\/p>\n
decided in favour of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
18.    Issue   No.   7   was   not   pressed   and   decided   against   the <\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
19.    Regarding Issue No. 10 (relief) the Trial Court observed <\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    “As   a   sequel   to   the   findings   of   this  <\/p>\n
             court   on   the   issues   mentioned   above,   the  <\/p>\n
             suit   of   the   plaintiff   stands   dismissed,  <\/p>\n
             however,           counter         claim         filed         by  <\/p>\n
             defendants   is   decreed   with   costs   to   the  <\/p>\n
             effect that  they  are  entitled  to  possession  <\/p>\n
             of land measuring 8 biswas  comprising of  <\/p>\n
             khewat   no.   34   khata   no.   56   khasa   no.  <\/p>\n
             3673\/452   situated   in   revenue   estate   of  <\/p>\n
             Hidayatpur   Chhavni   village   now   the   part  <\/p>\n
             of   known   as   Patel   Nagar,   Gurgaon.  <\/p>\n
             Decree   sheet   be   drawn   accordingly.     File  <\/p>\n
             be consigned to  the record room after due  <\/p>\n
             compliance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.    The   plaintiff,   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of   the   Trial <\/p>\n
Court filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 33) before the learned  <\/p>\n
Additional   District   Judge,   Gurgaon.     Learned   Additional <\/p>\n
District   Judge   while   deciding   the   appeal,   relied   on   the <\/p>\n
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered in <\/p>\n
                                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
the   case   of  Food   Corporation   of   India   and   Another     v.\n<\/p>\n
Dayal Singh 1991 PLJ 425, wherein it was observed that it <\/p>\n
does not behove the Government to take the plea of adverse <\/p>\n
possession against the citizens.\n<\/p>\n
21.    Learned Additional  District Judge also relied on  other <\/p>\n
judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of <\/p>\n
Bhim   Singh   &   Ors.  (supra)  and  Kanak   Ram   &   Ors.     v.\n<\/p>\n
Chanan Singh & Ors. (2007) 146 PLR 498 wherein   it was <\/p>\n
held   that   a   person   in   adverse   possession   of   immovable  <\/p>\n
property   cannot   file   a   suit   for   declaration   claiming <\/p>\n
ownership and such a suit was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
22.    Before   parting   with   the   judgment   the   learned <\/p>\n
Additional District Judge observed regarding conduct of the <\/p>\n
plaintiff that the present suit was filed by State of Haryana <\/p>\n
by the then Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon on 11th May, <\/p>\n
1996.     It   was   also   observed   by   the   learned   Additional <\/p>\n
District   Judge   that   the   Police   department   is   for   the <\/p>\n
protection of the people and property of the citizens and the <\/p>\n
police   department   had   unnecessarily   dragged   the <\/p>\n
defendants   in   unnecessary   litigation.     The   appeal   was <\/p>\n
dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
23.    Unfortunately, despite serious strictures passed by the <\/p>\n
Court,   the   State   of   Haryana   did   not   learn   a   lesson   and <\/p>\n
preferred   a   Second   Appeal   (RSA   No.   3909   of   2008)   before <\/p>\n
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh against <\/p>\n
the judgments and decrees of the two courts below.\n<\/p>\n
24.    The   High   Court,   relying   on   the   earlier   judgments, <\/p>\n
observed   that   the   welfare   State   which   was   responsible   for <\/p>\n
the protection of life and property of its citizens, was in the <\/p>\n
present   case,   itself   trying   to   grab   the   land\/property   of   the <\/p>\n
defendants under the garb of plea of adverse possession and <\/p>\n
hence   the   action   of   the   plaintiff   is   deplorable   and <\/p>\n
disgraceful.\n<\/p>\n
25.    Unfortunately,   the   State   of   Haryana,   is   still   not <\/p>\n
satisfied with the three strong judgments by three different <\/p>\n
forums given against the State and is still quite anxious and <\/p>\n
keen to grab the property of the defendants in a clandestine  <\/p>\n
manner on the plea of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
26.    In   a   democracy,   governed   by   rule   of   law,   the   task   of <\/p>\n
protecting   life   and   property   of   the   citizens   is   entrusted   to <\/p>\n
the   police   department   of   the   government.     In   the   instant <\/p>\n
case, the suit has been filed through the Superintendent of <\/p>\n
                                                                          1<\/span><\/p>\n
Police,   Gurgaon,   seeking   right   of   ownership   by   adverse <\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n
27.    The   revenue   records   of   the   State   revealed   that   the <\/p>\n
disputed property stood in the name of the defendants.  It is <\/p>\n
unfortunate   that   the   Superintendent   of   Police,   a   senior <\/p>\n
official of the Indian Police Service, made repeated attempts <\/p>\n
to   grab   the   property   of   the   true   owner   by   filing   repeated <\/p>\n
appeals before different forums claiming right of ownership <\/p>\n
by way of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
28.    The   citizens   may   lose   faith   in   the   entire   police <\/p>\n
administration of the country that those responsible for the  <\/p>\n
safety and security of their life and property are on a spree <\/p>\n
of   grabing   the   properties   from   the   true   owners   in   a <\/p>\n
clandestine manner.\n<\/p>\n
29.    A   very   informative   and   erudite   Article   was <\/p>\n
published in Neveda Law Journal Spring 2007 with the <\/p>\n
title   `Making   Sense   Out   of   Nonsense:     A   Response   to <\/p>\n
Adverse   Possession   by   Governmental   Entities’.     The <\/p>\n
Article   was   written   by   Andrew   Dickal.   Historical <\/p>\n
background of adverse possession was discussed in that <\/p>\n
article.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
Historical background<\/p>\n
30.    The   concept   of   adverse   possession   was   born   in <\/p>\n
England around 1275 and was initially created to allow <\/p>\n
a   person   to   claim   right   of   “seisin”   from   his   ancestry.\n<\/p>\n
Many   felt   that   the   original   law   that   relied   on   “seisin”\n<\/p>\n
was  difficult to  establish, and  around 1623  a statue  of <\/p>\n
limitations was put into place that allowed for a person <\/p>\n
in   possession   of   property   for   twenty   years   or   more   to <\/p>\n
acquire   title   to   that   property.     This   early   English <\/p>\n
doctrine   was   designed   to   prevent   legal   disputes   over <\/p>\n
property   rights   that   were   time   consuming   and   costly.\n<\/p>\n
The   doctrine   was   also   created   to   prevent   the   waste   of <\/p>\n
land   by   forcing   owners   to   monitor   their   property   or <\/p>\n
suffer the consequence of losing title.\n<\/p>\n
31.    The   concept   of   adverse   possession   was <\/p>\n
subsequently   adopted   in   the   United   States.     The <\/p>\n
doctrine   was   especially   important   in   early   American <\/p>\n
periods   to   cure   the   growing   number   of   title   disputes.\n<\/p>\n
The   American   version   mirrored   the   English   law,   which <\/p>\n
is   illustrated   by   most   States   adopting   a   twenty-year <\/p>\n
                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
statue of limitations for adverse possession claims.   As <\/p>\n
America   has   developed   to   the   present   date,   property <\/p>\n
rights   have   become   increasingly   more   important   and <\/p>\n
land has become limited.  As a result, the time period to <\/p>\n
acquire land by adverse possession has been reduced in <\/p>\n
some States to as   little as five years, while in others, it <\/p>\n
has remained as long as forty years.  The United States <\/p>\n
has also changed the traditional doctrine by preventing <\/p>\n
the use of adverse possession against property held by a <\/p>\n
governmental entity.\n<\/p>\n
32.    During the colonial  period,  prior  to the enactment <\/p>\n
of   the   Bill   of   Rights,   property   was   frequently   taken   by <\/p>\n
states from private land owners without compensation.\n<\/p>\n
Initially,   undeveloped   tracts   of   land   were   the   most <\/p>\n
common   type   of   property   acquired   by   the   government, <\/p>\n
as  they  were  sought  for   the  installation  of  public  road.\n<\/p>\n
Under   the  colonial   system   it   was  thought   that   benefits <\/p>\n
from the road would, in a newly opened country, always <\/p>\n
exceed the value of unimproved land.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
33.    The   doctrine   of   adverse   possession   arose   in   an   era <\/p>\n
where   lands   were   vast   particularly   in   the   United   States   of <\/p>\n
America and documentation sparse in order to give quietus <\/p>\n
to the title of the possessor and prevent fanciful claims from  <\/p>\n
erupting.     The   concept   of   adverse   possession   exits   to   cure <\/p>\n
potential  or  actual  defects in  real estate  titles by putting  a <\/p>\n
statute   of   limitation   on   possible   litigation   over   ownership <\/p>\n
and possession.  A landowner could be secure in title to his  <\/p>\n
land;   otherwise,   long-lost   heirs   of   any   former   owner, <\/p>\n
possessor   or   lien   holder   of   centuries   past   could   come <\/p>\n
forward   with   a   legal   claim   on   the   property.     Since <\/p>\n
independence   of   our   country   we   have   witnessed   registered <\/p>\n
documents of title and more proper, if not perfect, entries of  <\/p>\n
title   in   the   government   records.     The   situation   having <\/p>\n
changed, the statute calls for a change.\n<\/p>\n
34.    In Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai  <\/p>\n
Harijan   and   Others<\/a>  (2009)   16   SCC   517   (one   of   us <\/p>\n
Bhandari,   J.),   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to   examine   the <\/p>\n
English   and   American   law   on   “adverse   possession”.     The <\/p>\n
relevant paras of that judgment (Paras 24 and 26 to 29) are <\/p>\n
reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
      “24.  In   a   relatively   recent   case   in  P.T.\n<\/p>\n
Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC <\/p>\n
59,  this   Court   again   had   an   occasion   to   deal   with <\/p>\n
the   concept   of   adverse   possession   in   detail.   The <\/p>\n
Court   also   examined   the   legal   position   in   various <\/p>\n
countries   particularly   in   English   and   American <\/p>\n
systems.   We   deem   it   appropriate   to   reproduce <\/p>\n
relevant   passages   in   extenso.   The   Court   dealing <\/p>\n
with adverse possession in paras 5 and 6 observed <\/p>\n
as under: (SCC pp.        66-67)<\/p>\n
         “5. Adverse possession in one sense is based <\/p>\n
      on   the   theory   or   presumption   that   the   owner <\/p>\n
      has   abandoned   the   property   to   the   adverse <\/p>\n
      possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to <\/p>\n
      the   hostile   acts   and   claims   of   the   person   in <\/p>\n
      possession.  It  follows  that  sound qualities  of a  <\/p>\n
      typical  adverse  possession  lie  in  it  being  open,  <\/p>\n
      continuous   and   hostile.   (See   Downing  v.  Bird <\/p>\n
      100   So   2d   57   (Fla   1958),              Arkansas  <\/p>\n
      Commemorative   Commission                   v.     City   of  <\/p>\n
      Little  Rock  227,   Ark   1085   :   303   SW   2d   569 <\/p>\n
      (1957);  Monnot  v.  Murphy  207   NY  240   :   100 <\/p>\n
      NE   742   (1913);  City   of   Rock   Springs  v.\n<\/p>\n
      Sturm  39   Wyo   494   :   273   P   908   :   97   ALR   1 <\/p>\n
      (1929).)<\/p>\n
         6.   Efficacy   of   adverse   possession   law   in <\/p>\n
      most   jurisdictions   depends   on   strong <\/p>\n
      limitation statutes by operation of which right <\/p>\n
      to   access   the   court   expires   through   efflux   of <\/p>\n
      time.  As  against   rights   of  the   paper-owner,   in <\/p>\n
      the   context   of   adverse   possession,   there <\/p>\n
      evolves   a   set   of   competing   rights   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
      the   adverse   possessor   who   has,   for   a   long <\/p>\n
      period of time, cared for the land, developed it, <\/p>\n
      as  against  the  owner   of the  property who  has <\/p>\n
      ignored   the   property.   Modern   statutes   of <\/p>\n
      limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off <\/p>\n
      one’s right  to  bring an  action   for  the  recovery <\/p>\n
      of   property   that   has   been   in   the   adverse <\/p>\n
      possession of another for a specified time, but <\/p>\n
                                                                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
              also   to   vest   the   possessor   with   title.   The <\/p>\n
              intention of such statutes is not to punish one <\/p>\n
              who   neglects   to   assert   rights,   but   to   protect <\/p>\n
              those   who   have   maintained   the   possession   of <\/p>\n
              property   for   the   time   specified   by   the   statute <\/p>\n
              under   claim   of   right   or   colour   of   title.   (See <\/p>\n
              American Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 2d, p. 81.  It is  <\/p>\n
              important   to   keep   in   mind   while   studying   the  <\/p>\n
              American   notion   of   adverse   possession,  <\/p>\n
              especially in the backdrop of limitation statutes,  <\/p>\n
              that the intention to dispossess cannot be given  <\/p>\n
              a   complete   go-by.   Simple   application   of  <\/p>\n
              limitation   shall   not   be   enough   by   itself   for   the  <\/p>\n
              success of an adverse possession claim.”\n<\/p>\n
35.    A person pleading adverse possession   has no equities <\/p>\n
in   his   favour   since   he   is   trying   to   defeat   the   rights   of   the <\/p>\n
true   owner.   It   is   for   him   to   clearly   plead   and   establish   all <\/p>\n
facts necessary to establish adverse possession. Though we <\/p>\n
got   this   law   of   adverse   possession   from   the   British,   it   is  <\/p>\n
important to note that these days English Courts are taking <\/p>\n
a very negative view towards the law of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
The English law was amended and changed substantially to <\/p>\n
reflect these changes, particularly in   light of the   view that  <\/p>\n
property   is   a   human   right   adopted   by   the     European <\/p>\n
Commission.    This   Court   in  Revamma  (supra)   observed <\/p>\n
that   to   understand   the   true   nature   of   adverse <\/p>\n
possession, Fairweather v. St                     Marylebone            Property  <\/p>\n
Co [1962]   2   WLR   1020 : [1962]   2   All   ER   288 can   be <\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
considered           where         House         of         Lords         referring <\/p>\n
to Taylor v. Twinberrow [1930]   2   K.B.   16 termed   adverse <\/p>\n
possession   as   a   negative   and   consequential   right   effected <\/p>\n
only   because   somebody   else’s   positive   right   to   access   the <\/p>\n
court is barred by operation of law.  As against the rights of <\/p>\n
the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there <\/p>\n
evolves   a   set   of   competing   rights   in   favour   of   the   adverse  <\/p>\n
possessor who  has, for a long period of time, cared for the  <\/p>\n
land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who <\/p>\n
has ignored the property.\n<\/p>\n
36.    The right to property is now considered to be not only <\/p>\n
constitutional   or   statutory   right   but   also   a   human   right.\n<\/p>\n
Human   rights   have   already   been   considered   in   realm   of <\/p>\n
individual rights such as right to health, right to livelihood, <\/p>\n
right to shelter and employment etc. But now human rights <\/p>\n
are gaining a multi faceted dimension.   Right to property is <\/p>\n
also   considered   very   much   a   part   of   the   new   dimension.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, even claim  of adverse possession has to be read <\/p>\n
in that context.\n<\/p>\n
37.    The   changing   attitude   of   the   English   Courts   is   quite <\/p>\n
visible   from   the   judgment   of  Beaulane   Properties   Ltd.  v.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
Palmer (2005) 3 WLR 554.  The Court here tried to read the <\/p>\n
human rights position in the context of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
But what is commendable is that the dimension of human <\/p>\n
rights   have   widened   so   much   that   now   property   dispute <\/p>\n
issues are also being raised within  the  contours  of human <\/p>\n
rights.   With the expanding jurisprudence of the European <\/p>\n
Courts   of   Human   Rights,   the   Court   has   taken   an   unkind <\/p>\n
view to the concept of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
38.    Paragraphs   from   26   to   29   of  Hemaji   Waghaji   Jat <\/p>\n
(supra) are set out as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             26.  With   the   expanding   jurisprudence   of   the <\/p>\n
       European   Court   of   Human   Rights,   the   Court   has <\/p>\n
       taken   an   unkind   view   to   the   concept   of   adverse <\/p>\n
       possession   in   the   recent   judgment   of  JA   Pye  <\/p>\n
       (Oxford)   Ltd.  v.  United   Kingdom  (2005)   49   ERG <\/p>\n
       90 which concerned the loss of ownership of land by <\/p>\n
       virtue   of  adverse possession.  In the  said  case, “the <\/p>\n
       applicant   company   was   the   registered   owner   of   a <\/p>\n
       plot of 23 hectares of agricultural land. The owners <\/p>\n
       of   a   property   adjacent   to   the   land,   Mr   and   Mrs <\/p>\n
       Graham   (the   Grahams)   occupied   the   land   under   a <\/p>\n
       grazing   agreement.   After   a   brief   exchange   of <\/p>\n
       documents in December 1983 a chartered surveyor <\/p>\n
       acting   for   the   applicants   wrote   to   the   Grahams <\/p>\n
       noting   that   the   grazing   agreement   was   about   to <\/p>\n
       expire   and  requiring  them  to  vacate  the  land.”  The <\/p>\n
       Grahams   continued   to   use   the   whole   of   the <\/p>\n
       disputed land for farming without the permission of <\/p>\n
       the   applicants   from   September   1998   till   1999.   In <\/p>\n
       1997,   Mr   Graham   moved   the   Local   Land   Registry <\/p>\n
       against   the   applicant   on   the   ground   that   he   had <\/p>\n
       obtained  title   by  adverse   possession.   The   Grahams <\/p>\n
                                                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged   the   applicant   company’s   claims   under <\/p>\n
the   Limitation   Act,   1980   (the   1980   Act)   which <\/p>\n
provides   that   a   person   cannot   bring   an   action   to <\/p>\n
recover any land after the expiration  of 12 years of <\/p>\n
adverse possession by another.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      27.  The judgment was pronounced in  JA Pye  <\/p>\n
(Oxford) Ltd.  v.  Graham  (2000) 3 WLR 242 : 2000 <\/p>\n
Ch   676.   The   Court   held   in   favour   of   the   Grahams <\/p>\n
but  went  on  to  observe the   irony  in  law of  adverse <\/p>\n
possession.   The   court   observed   that  the   law   which <\/p>\n
provides to oust an owner on the basis of inaction of <\/p>\n
12 years is “illogical and disproportionate”. The effect <\/p>\n
of   such   law   would   “seem   draconian   to   the   owner”\n<\/p>\n
and   “a   windfall   for   the   squatter”.   The   court <\/p>\n
expressed   its   astonishment   on   the   prevalent   law <\/p>\n
that   ousting   an   owner   for   not   taking   action   within <\/p>\n
limitation   is   illogical.   The   applicant   company <\/p>\n
aggrieved by the said judgment filed an appeal and <\/p>\n
the   Court   of   Appeal   reversed   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
decision. The Grahams then appealed to the House <\/p>\n
of   Lords,   which,   allowed   their   appeal   and   restored <\/p>\n
the order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
      28.  The   House   of   Lords   in  JA   Pye   (Oxford)  <\/p>\n
Ltd.  v.  Graham  (2003)   1   AC   419   :   (2002)   3   WLR <\/p>\n
221   :   (2002)   3   All   ER   865   (HL),  observed   that   the <\/p>\n
Grahams had possession of the land in the ordinary <\/p>\n
sense   of   the   word,   and,   therefore,   the   applicant <\/p>\n
company   had   been   dispossessed   of   it   within   the <\/p>\n
meaning of the Limitation Act of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
      29.  We   deem   it   proper   to   reproduce   the <\/p>\n
relevant   portion   of   the   judgment   in                 P.T.\n<\/p>\n
Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC <\/p>\n
59: (SCC p. 79, paras 51-52)<\/p>\n
          “51.   Thereafter   the   applicants   moved   the <\/p>\n
      European   Commission   of   Human   Rights <\/p>\n
      (ECHR)   alleging   that   the   United   Kingdom   law <\/p>\n
      on adverse possession, by which they lost land <\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
to a neighbour, operated in violation of Article <\/p>\n
1   of   Protocol   1   to   the   Convention   for   the <\/p>\n
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental <\/p>\n
Freedoms (`the Convention’).\n<\/p>\n
   52. It was contended by the applicants that <\/p>\n
they   had   been   deprived   of   their   land   by   the <\/p>\n
operation   of   the   domestic   law   on   adverse <\/p>\n
possession   which   is   in   contravention   with <\/p>\n
Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the <\/p>\n
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental <\/p>\n
Freedoms   (`the   Convention’),   which   reads   as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
          `Every natural or legal person is entitled <\/p>\n
     to   the   peaceful   enjoyment   of   his <\/p>\n
     possession. No one shall be deprived of his <\/p>\n
     possession   except   in   the   public   interest <\/p>\n
     and subject to the conditions provided for <\/p>\n
     by   law   and   by   the   general   principles   of <\/p>\n
     international law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The   preceding   provisions   shall   not, <\/p>\n
     however, in any way impair the right of a <\/p>\n
     State   to   enforce   such   laws   as   it   deems <\/p>\n
     necessary to control the use of property in <\/p>\n
     accordance with the general interest or to <\/p>\n
     secure   the   payment   of   taxes   or   other <\/p>\n
     contributions or penalties.’ ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court in Revamma case   also mentioned <\/p>\n
that   the   European   Council   of   Human   Rights <\/p>\n
importantly   laid   down   three-pronged   test   to <\/p>\n
judge the interference of the Government with <\/p>\n
the   right   of   “peaceful   enjoyment   of   property”:\n<\/p>\n
(SCC p. 79, para 53)<\/p>\n
   “53. … [In]  Beyeler  v.  Italy  [GC] No. 33202 <\/p>\n
of   1996  ”   108-14   ECHR   2000-I,   it   was   held <\/p>\n
that   the   `interference’   should   comply   with   the <\/p>\n
principle of lawfulness and pursue a legitimate <\/p>\n
aim   (public   interest)   by   means   reasonably <\/p>\n
proportionate to the aim sought to be realised.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
            The   Court   observed:(Revamma   case  79-80, <\/p>\n
            paras 54-56)<\/p>\n
               “54.   …   `The   question   nevertheless   remains <\/p>\n
            whether, even having regard to the lack of care <\/p>\n
            and inadvertence on the part of the applicants <\/p>\n
            and their advisers, the deprivation of their title <\/p>\n
            to   the   registered   land   and   the   transfer   of <\/p>\n
            beneficial   ownership   to   those   in   unauthorized <\/p>\n
            possession   struck   a   fair   balance   with   any <\/p>\n
            legitimate public interest served.<\/p>\n
               In   these   circumstances,   the   Court <\/p>\n
            concludes   that   the   application   of   the <\/p>\n
            provisions   of   the   1925   and   1980   Acts   to <\/p>\n
            deprive the applicant companies of their title to <\/p>\n
            the   registered   land   imposed   on   them   an <\/p>\n
            individual and excessive burden and upset the <\/p>\n
            fair   balance   between   the   demands   of   the <\/p>\n
            public   interest   on   the   one   hand   and   the <\/p>\n
            applicants’   right   to   the   peaceful   enjoyment   of <\/p>\n
            their possessions on the other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               There   has   therefore   been   a   violation   of <\/p>\n
            Article 1 of Protocol 1.’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               55. The question of the application of Article <\/p>\n
            41   was   referred   for   the   Grand   Chamber <\/p>\n
            Hearing   of   the   ECHR.   This   case   sets   the   field <\/p>\n
            of adverse possession and its interface with the <\/p>\n
            right   to   peaceful   enjoyment   in   all   its <\/p>\n
            complexity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
               56. Therefore it will have to be kept in mind <\/p>\n
            the   courts   around   the   world   are   taking   an <\/p>\n
            unkind   view   towards   statutes   of   limitation <\/p>\n
            overriding property rights.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
39.    In  Hemaji   Waghaji   Jat  case,   this   Court   ultimately <\/p>\n
observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
             “32. Before parting with this case, we deem it
\n       appropriate   to   observe   that   the   law   of   adverse <\/p>\n
       possession   which   ousts   an   owner   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
       inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and <\/p>\n
       wholly   disproportionate.   The   law   as   it   exists   is <\/p>\n
       extremely harsh for the  true owner and a windfall <\/p>\n
       for   a   dishonest   person   who   had   illegally   taken <\/p>\n
       possession   of   the   property   of   the   true   owner.   The <\/p>\n
       law   ought   not   to   benefit   a   person   who   in   a <\/p>\n
       clandestine   manner   takes   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
       property of the owner in contravention of law. This <\/p>\n
       in substance would mean that the law gives seal of <\/p>\n
       approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank <\/p>\n
       trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession <\/p>\n
       of the property of the true owner.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             33.  We   fail   to   comprehend   why   the   law
\n       should   place   premium   on   dishonesty   by <\/p>\n
       legitimising   possession   of   a   rank   trespasser   and <\/p>\n
       compelling   the   owner   to   lose   his   possession   only <\/p>\n
       because   of   his   inaction   in   taking   back   the <\/p>\n
       possession within limitation.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Fifth   Amendment   of   the   U.S.   Constitution   –   a <\/p>\n
principle of a civilized society<\/p>\n
40.    Another important development in the protection of <\/p>\n
property   rights   was   the   Fifth   Amendment.     James <\/p>\n
Madison was the drafter and key supporter for the Fifth <\/p>\n
Amendment.     The   Fifth   Amendment   states:     “nor   shall <\/p>\n
private   property   be   taken   for   public   use,   without   just <\/p>\n
compensation”.   The   main   issue   is   to   pay   just <\/p>\n
compensation   for   acquiring   the   property.   There   are <\/p>\n
primarily  two  situations  when  a  landowner  may  obtain <\/p>\n
compensation   for   land   officially   transferred   to   or <\/p>\n
                                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
depreciated by the government.   First, an owner may be <\/p>\n
entitled   to   compensation   when   a   governmental   entity <\/p>\n
intentionally acquires private property through a formal <\/p>\n
condemnation   proceeding   and   without   the   owner’s <\/p>\n
consent.   The   State’s   power   to   take   property   is <\/p>\n
considered inherent through its eminent domain powers <\/p>\n
as a sovereign.  Through the condemnation proceedings, <\/p>\n
the   government   obtains   the   necessary   interest   in   the <\/p>\n
land,   and   the   Fifth   Amendment   requires   that   the <\/p>\n
property owner be compensated for this loss.\n<\/p>\n
41.    The   second   situation   requiring   compensation <\/p>\n
under   Fifth   Amendment   occurs   when   the   government <\/p>\n
has   not   officially   acquired   private   property   through   a <\/p>\n
formal   condemnation   proceeding,   but   “nonetheless <\/p>\n
takes   property   by   physically   invading   or   appropriating <\/p>\n
it”.     Under   this   scenario,   the   property   owner,   at   the <\/p>\n
point in which a “taking” has occurred, has the option <\/p>\n
of filing a claim against the government actor to recover <\/p>\n
just   compensation   for   the   loss.     When   the   landowner <\/p>\n
sues the government seeking compensation for a taking, <\/p>\n
                                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
it   is   considered   an   inverse   condemnation   proceeding, <\/p>\n
because   the   landowner   and   not   the   government   is <\/p>\n
bringing the cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
42.    We   inherited   this   law   of   adverse   possession   from   the  <\/p>\n
British.  The Parliament may consider abolishing the law of <\/p>\n
adverse   possession   or   at   least   amending   and   making <\/p>\n
substantial   changes   in   law   in   the   larger   public   interest.\n<\/p>\n
The   Government   instrumentalities   –   including   the   police   –\n<\/p>\n
in   the   instant   case   have   attempted   to   possess   land <\/p>\n
adversely. This, in our opinion, a testament to the absurdity  <\/p>\n
of   the   law   and   a   black   mark   upon   the   justice   system’s <\/p>\n
legitimacy.   The Government should protect the property of <\/p>\n
a citizen – not steal it.  And yet, as the law currently stands, <\/p>\n
they may do just that. If this law is to be retained, according  <\/p>\n
to the wisdom of the Parliament, then at least the law must <\/p>\n
require   those   who   adversely   possess   land   to   compensate <\/p>\n
title   owners   according   to   the   prevalent   market   rate   of   the <\/p>\n
land or property in question.  This alternative would provide <\/p>\n
some semblance of justice to those who have done nothing <\/p>\n
other   than   sitting   on   their   rights   for   the   statutory   period, <\/p>\n
while allowing the adverse possessor to remain on property.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
While   it   may   be   indefensible   to   require   all   adverse <\/p>\n
possessors   –   some   of   whom   may   be   poor   –   to   pay   market  <\/p>\n
rates   for   the   land   they   possess,   perhaps   some   lesser <\/p>\n
amount   would   be   realistic   in   most   of   the   cases.     The <\/p>\n
Parliament may either fix a set range of rates or to leave it <\/p>\n
to   the   judiciary   with   the   option   of   choosing   from   within   a <\/p>\n
set   range   of   rates   so   as   to   tailor   the   compensation   to   the <\/p>\n
equities of a given case.\n<\/p>\n
43.    The   Parliament   must   seriously   consider   at   least   to <\/p>\n
abolish   “bad   faith”   adverse   possession,   i.e.,   adverse <\/p>\n
possession   achieved   through   intentional   trespassing.\n<\/p>\n
Actually   believing   it   to   be   their   own   could   receive   title <\/p>\n
through   adverse   possession   sends   a   wrong   signal   to   the <\/p>\n
society   at   large.     Such   a   change   would   ensure   that   only <\/p>\n
those who had established attachments to the land through <\/p>\n
honest means would be entitled to legal relief.\n<\/p>\n
44.    In   case,   the   Parliament   decides   to   retain   the   law   of <\/p>\n
adverse   possession,   the   Parliament   might   simply   require <\/p>\n
adverse   possession   claimants   to   possess   the   property   in <\/p>\n
question for a period of 30 to 50 years, rather than a mere <\/p>\n
12.     Such   an   extension   would   help   to   ensure   that  <\/p>\n
                                                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
successful claimants have lived on the land for generations, <\/p>\n
and   are  therefore  less likely to   be  individually  culpable  for <\/p>\n
the   trespass   (although   their   forebears   might).   A   longer <\/p>\n
statutory   period   would   also   decrease   the   frequency   of <\/p>\n
adverse   possession   suits   and   ensure   that   only   those <\/p>\n
claimants most intimately connected with the land acquire <\/p>\n
it, while only the most passive and unprotective owners lose <\/p>\n
title.\n<\/p>\n
45.   Reverting   to   the   facts   of   this   case,   if   the   Police <\/p>\n
department   of   the   State   with   all   its   might   is   bent   upon <\/p>\n
taking   possession   of   any   land   or   building   in   a   clandestine  <\/p>\n
manner,   then,   perhaps   no   one   would   be  able   to  effectively <\/p>\n
prevent them.\n<\/p>\n
46.    It is our bounden duty and obligation to ascertain the <\/p>\n
intention of the Parliament while interpreting the law.   Law <\/p>\n
and   Justice,   more   often   than   not,   happily   coincide   only <\/p>\n
rarely   we   find   serious   conflict.   The   archaic   law   of   adverse <\/p>\n
possession   is   one   such.     A   serious   re-look   is   absolutely <\/p>\n
imperative in the larger interest of the people.\n<\/p>\n
47.    Adverse   possession   allows   a   trespasser   –   a   person <\/p>\n
guilty of a tort, or even a crime, in the eyes of law – to gain  <\/p>\n
                                                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
legal   title   to   land   which   he   has   illegally   possessed   for   12 <\/p>\n
years. How 12 years of illegality can suddenly be converted <\/p>\n
to   legal   title   is,   logically   and   morally   speaking,   baffling.\n<\/p>\n
This outmoded law essentially asks the judiciary to place its <\/p>\n
stamp   of   approval   upon   conduct   that   the   ordinary   Indian <\/p>\n
citizen would find reprehensible.\n<\/p>\n
48.    The   doctrine   of   adverse   possession   has   troubled   a <\/p>\n
great many legal minds.   We are clearly of the opinion that <\/p>\n
time has come for change.\n<\/p>\n
49.    If   the   protectors   of   law   become   the   grabbers   of   the <\/p>\n
property   (land   and   building),   then,   people   will   be   left   with <\/p>\n
no   protection   and   there   would   be   a   total   anarchy   in   the <\/p>\n
entire country.\n<\/p>\n
50.    It is indeed a very disturbing and dangerous trend.  In <\/p>\n
our   considered   view,   it   must   be   arrested   without   further <\/p>\n
loss   of   time   in   the   larger   public   interest.     No   Government <\/p>\n
Department, Public Undertaking, and much less the Police <\/p>\n
Department   should   be   permitted   to   perfect   the   title   of   the <\/p>\n
land   or   building   by   invoking   the   provisions   of   adverse <\/p>\n
possession and grab the property of its own citizens in the  <\/p>\n
manner that has been done in this case.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
51.    In   our   considered   view,   there   is   an   urgent   need   for   a <\/p>\n
fresh   look   of   the   entire   law   on   adverse   possession.     We <\/p>\n
recommend the Union  of India to immediately consider and <\/p>\n
seriously   deliberate   either   abolition   of   the   law   of   adverse <\/p>\n
possession   and   in   the   alternate   to   make   suitable <\/p>\n
amendments in the law of adverse possession. A copy of this <\/p>\n
judgment   be   sent   to   the   Secretary,   Ministry   of   Law   and <\/p>\n
Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for <\/p>\n
taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
52.    This   Special   Leave   Petition   is   dismissed   with   costs   of  <\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid by the  <\/p>\n
State   of   Haryana   for   filing   a   totally   frivolous   petition   and <\/p>\n
unnecessarily   wasting   the   time   of   the   Court   and <\/p>\n
demonstrating   its   evil   design   of   grabbing   the   properties   of <\/p>\n
lawful   owners   in   a   clandestine   manner.     The   costs   be <\/p>\n
deposited within four weeks from the date of pronouncement <\/p>\n
of this judgment.  In this petition, we did not issue notice to <\/p>\n
the   defendants,   therefore,   we   direct   that   the   costs   be <\/p>\n
deposited   with   the   National   Legal   Services   Authority   for <\/p>\n
utilizing the same to enable the poor litigants to contest their <\/p>\n
cases.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
53.     This Special Leave Petition being devoid of any merit is  <\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                             …………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (Dalveer Bhandari)<\/p>\n
                                              ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (Deepak Verma)<\/p>\n
New Delhi:\n<\/p>\n
September 30,  2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 Author: D Bhandari Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 28034\/2011 (Arising out of CC 9038\/2010) State of Haryana …Petitioner Versus Mukesh Kumar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-27T16:31:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T16:31:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5469,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T16:31:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-27T16:31:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T16:31:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011"},"wordCount":5469,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011","name":"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T16:31:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-mukesh-kumar-ors-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228249\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}