Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras Saklecha vs Union Of India on 23 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WP-10744-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-10744-2021
(PARAS SAKLECHA Vs UNION OF INDIA)
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri A.S.Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.K.Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondent/Union of India.
In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Articles 64
and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 relying on para 44 to 46 of the judgement
of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar
and Others (2011) 10 SCC 404, which reads as under:
44. Adverse possession allows a trespasser - a person guilty of a tort,
or even a crime, in the eyes of law - to gain legal title to land which he
has illegally possessed for 12 years. How 12 years of illegality can
suddenly be converted to legal title is, logically and morally speaking,
baffling. This outmoded law essentially asks the judiciary to place its
stamp of approval upon conduct that the ordinary Indian citizen would
find reprehensible. The doctrine of adverse possession has troubled a
great many legal minds. We are clearly of the opinion that time has
come for change.
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.
46. In our considered view, there is an urgent need for a fresh look of
the entire law on adverse possession. 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 of adverse possession. A copy of this judgment
be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of
Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps in
accordance with law.
Shri A.S.Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Union of India has so far not taken any steps to delete the aforementioned
Articles 64 and 65. They give an undue advantage to the trespassers who
2 WP-10744-2021
infact violates the law by encroaching upon the property of someone else.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Union of India
simply forwarded the matter to the Law Commission, thereafter no progress
has taken place.
Whether or not the Articles 64 and 65 should be retained in the
Limitation Act, 1963 in their present form is essentially a matter of legislative
policy. The petitioner may in this connection approach the Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of
India, inviting his attention to this issue who may examine the matter in light of
the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
We do not therefore, deem it appropriate to entertain this petition.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
anu
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA
CHOUBEY
Date: 2021.06.24 14:59:47 IST
