[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpeet Singh And Others vs Nagar Council,Sunam on 6 April, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

Gurpreet Singh and Others . . . . Appellants

Vs.
Nagar Council, Sunam . . . . Respondent

****
Reserved on: 02.04.2026
Pronounced on: 06.04.2026
Pronounced fully/opera6ve part: Fully
****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Deol, Advocate,
Mr. Edward George Masih, Advocate and
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocates
for the appellants.

Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate and
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate
for the respondent.

****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain*ﬀs, assailing the concurrent ﬁndings recorded by both the Courts below, in as much as, the suit ﬁled by the plain*ﬀs for declara*on, along with consequen*al relief of permanent injunc*on in respect of the suit property, came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2002. The appeal preferred by the plain*ﬀs-appellants was also dismissed by the learned ﬁrst Appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2002, thereby aﬃrming the ﬁndings of the trial Court.

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

2. The record of the trial Court has been received and carefully perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the par*es. Translated copies of the relevant documents have also been placed on record for proper apprecia*on.

3. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion, the par*es shall hereina7er be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

4. The subject ma9er of the dispute pertains to land measuring 41 Kanal 3 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of Sunam, fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint.

5.1 Plain ﬀ's Case : As per the case set up by the plain*ﬀs, their pre- decessor-in-interest, namely Baljit Singh, had taken forcible possession of the suit land on 13.04.1968, at a *me when the land was owned by Gram Pan- chayat Moranwali. Subsequently, upon inclusion of the area within municipal limits, the Gram Panchayat ceased to exist, and all its rights, *tle, and interest in the suit land stood vested in the defendant (respondent herein) Nagar Council, Sunam.

5.2 Baljit Singh is stated to have remained in possession of the suit land *ll his death in October, 1980. Therea7er, the plain*ﬀs, being his widow and sons, claim to have con*nued in uninterrupted possession of the suit prop- erty. It is their speciﬁc case that neither Baljit Singh nor the plain*ﬀs ever paid any rent, lease amount, or 'chakota' to the defendant or its predecessor. The plain*ﬀs assert that their possession, as well as that of their predecessor, has been actual, open, con*nuous, uninterrupted, hos*le, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby fulﬁlling all the necessary ingredients of adverse pos- session. On this premise, it is claimed that the plain*ﬀs have perfected their *tle over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

5.3 It is further averred that the defendant, taking advantage of its re- corded ownership in the revenue records, has been a9emp*ng to transfer the suit property and to dispossess the plain*ﬀs by use of force. Despite requests

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

made by the plain*ﬀs to recognize their rights, the defendant failed to accede, compelling the plain*ﬀs to ins*tute the present suit seeking a declara*on of ownership by way of adverse possession, along with a decree of permanent in- junc*on restraining the defendant from aliena*ng the suit property or interfer- ing with their possession.

6. Defendant's Stand : Contes*ng the suit, the defendant though ad- mi9ed that the plain*ﬀs were in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property as reﬂected in the revenue record, but speciﬁcally denied that the plain*ﬀs had acquired ownership by adverse possession. Several preliminary objec*ons were also raised, including want of statutory no*ce, lack of locus standi, estoppel, and concealment of material facts, besides the plea that the suit was frivolous and ins*tuted only to harass the defendant.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the par*es, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Both par*es led their respec*ve evidence in support of their claims, which was taken on record.

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the par*es, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. Both sides led their respec*ve evidence, which was duly taken on record.

9.1 Findings of the Courts below: Upon apprecia*on of the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court returned a ﬁnding that the plain*ﬀs had failed to establish their plea of con*nuous possession over the suit property since 13.04.1968, as asserted in the plaint. It was no*ced that the entries in the Jamabandi reﬂected the possession of the plain*ﬀs only from the year 1974-75 onwards, and no documentary evidence or revenue record prior thereto had been produced to substan*ate their claim of earlier possession.

9.2 The trial Court further held that, in respect of property belonging to the Government or a statutory authority, a period of 30 years is required to perfect *tle by way of adverse possession. In the present case, the suit had been ins*tuted in May, 2001 and, even if the plain*ﬀs' possession was taken

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

from the year 1974-75, the requisite statutory period of 30 years had not elapsed. Consequently, the plain*ﬀs were held not to have perfected their *tle over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

9.3 It was also observed that the possession of the plain*ﬀs, as reﬂec- ted in the revenue record, was illegal and unauthorized in nature, and such pos- session could not be granted protec*on in law. On these ﬁndings, the suit ﬁled by the plain*ﬀs was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2002.

10. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plain*ﬀs pre- ferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned ﬁrst Appellate Court. The ﬁndings recorded by the trial Court were aﬃrmed in toto, and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2002.

11.1 Conten ons of the Appellants - Plain ﬀs : Assailing the concurrent ﬁndings recorded by both the Courts below, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-plain*ﬀs contended that the said ﬁndings suﬀer from patent illegality and perversity. It was argued that both the Courts below have erred in disbelieving the case of the plain*ﬀs regarding their possession over the suit property since April, 1968, i.e., from the *me their predecessor Baljit Singh allegedly took forcible possession thereof.

11.2 In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel invited the a9en*on of this Court to the legal no*ce (Ex.P1) issued by the plain*ﬀs to the defendant-Nagar Council, Sunam under Sec*on 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, wherein it was speciﬁcally asserted that the plain*ﬀs, and prior thereto their predecessor Baljit Singh, had been in possession of the suit property since 13.04.1968. It was further asserted therein that such possession was actual, ex- clusive, con*nuous, open, hos*le, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby cons*tu*ng adverse possession under colour of *tle. Learned counsel then referred to the reply dated 02.05.2001 (Ex.P2) sent by the defendant, wherein the possession of the plain*ﬀs, and earlier of Baljit Singh, was admit- ted.

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

11.3 It was contended that there was no speciﬁc denial of the plain*ﬀs' asser*on regarding the commencement of possession from 13.04.1968. Reli- ance was also placed upon the pleadings of the par*es to contend that, al- though possession was admi9ed in the wri9en statement, the speciﬁc date of commencement of possession, as pleaded by the plain*ﬀs, was not expressly denied. On this premise, learned senior counsel argued that the plain*ﬀs had successfully established con*nuous possession for a period exceeding 30 years prior to the ins*tu*on of the suit in May, 2001, and thus their possession had ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession.

11.4 In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon "Par- kash Kaur and others vs. Joginder Singh and others" 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 145, to contend that admi9ed facts need not be proved and that admission cons*tutes the best evidence. Further reliance was placed upon "M. Venkataramana Hebbar (dead) by LRs vs. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others" (2007) 6 SCC 401, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an averment not speciﬁcally denied in the wri9en statement is deemed to have been admi9ed, and in view of Sec*on 58 of the Evidence Act, such admi9ed facts need not be proved. Reli- ance was also placed upon "Surjit Singh (since deceased) vs. Mahinder Singh and others" 2025 NCPHHC 148250, to contend that long, open, and hos*le pos- session matures into ownership.

12.1 Conten ons of the Respondent - Defendant : Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Council, Sunam contended that although the defendant had admi9ed the possession of the plain*ﬀs over the suit property, there was no admission whatsoever that such possession commenced from April, 1968.

12.2 It was further argued that the suit property was originally owned by Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, and it was only during the year 1997-98 that the ownership stood transferred to the defendant-Municipal Council, Sunam. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

(Ex.D1), which reﬂects muta*on No.8781 recording the change of ownership in favour of the defendant.

12.3 Learned counsel further submi9ed that the revenue record pro- duced by the plain*ﬀs themselves commences only from the year 1974-75, which shows the ownership of Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali and possession of Baljit Singh. It was highlighted that no documentary evidence prior to 1974-75 had been produced, and even as per the plain*ﬀs' own applica*on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, no such record was available.

12.4 The tes*mony of the plain*ﬀs' witnesses was also assailed on the ground that two of them had no personal knowledge of the alleged ini*al pos- session, while the third witness merely stated that the plain*ﬀs had been in possession for about 30 years.

12.5 It was further pointed out that the nature of the land, as reﬂected in the revenue record, was partly 'Chahi' and partly 'Gair Mumkin', and in sub- sequent records, a por*on of the suit land con*nued to be described as 'Gair Mumkin'.

12.6 A9en*on was also drawn to addi*onal evidence sought to be placed on record by the defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, including Khasra Girdawari entries from 2005 to 2021, which depict the land as 'Gair Mumkin', with part of it being used as a pond. Reference was made to the re- port of the Naib Tehsildar (Ex.A4), indica*ng that the land was being used for disposal of garbage and dirty water by the Municipal Council. Photographs an- nexed with the applica*on were also relied upon to substan*ate this posi*on. Despite no*ce, no reply to the applica*on for addi*onal evidence was ﬁled by the appellants.

12.7 It was further argued that in the case of vacant or 'Gair Mumkin' land, possession follows *tle, and therefore, the defendant being the recorded owner, is presumed to be in possession. It was also contended that the con*n-

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

ued recording of Baljit Singh's possession in revenue records even a7er his death in 1980 renders such entries unreliable and devoid of eviden*ary value.

12.8 Learned senior counsel further argued that the plea of adverse possession is required to be strictly proved and cannot be presumed. In this re- gard, reliance was placed upon "Ravinder Kumar Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur"

(2019) 8 SCC 729, "Saroop Singh vs. Banto" (2005) 8 SCC 330, and "Ram Nagina Rai vs. Deo Kumar Rai" (2019) 13 SCC 324.

12.9 It was also contended that in cases involving Government or public property, the requirements for establishing adverse possession are even more stringent, as held in "R. Hanumaiah vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department" (2010) 5 SCC 203. Further reliance was placed upon "Thankappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others" 2022(2) CTC 19 (Madras High Court) to contend that property reserved for public purposes, such as wa- ter bodies, is held by the State as a trust for the public, and therefore, no indi- vidual can claim ownership over such property by way of adverse possession.

12.10 On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior coun- sel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal, contending that no substan*al ques*on of law arises for considera*on and that the concurrent ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below warrant no interference.

13. Substan6al Ques6ons of Law : Upon hearing learned counsel for the par*es, the following ques*ons arise for considera*on:

x Whether mere admission of possession by the defendant, without speciﬁc denial of the date of commencement, is suﬃcient to establish adverse possession?

x Whether the plain*ﬀs have discharged the burden of proving adverse possession over Government/public property in accordance with se9led legal principles?

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

x Whether concurrent ﬁndings of fact recorded by the Courts below suﬀer from perversity or misapplica*on of law warran*ng interference under Sec*on 100 CPC?

14. Considera on by this Court : This Court has given its thoughPul considera*on to the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for both the par*es and has carefully appraised the en*re record.

15. At the outset, it may be no*ced that the suit was ins*tuted in May, 2001. The en*re ediﬁce of the plain*ﬀs' claim rests upon the asser*on that they, and prior to them their predecessor Baljit Singh, had been in unauthorized possession of the suit property since 13.04.1968 and, therefore, by eﬄux of *me, their possession had matured into ownership by way of adverse posses- sion, par*cularly keeping in view the extended limita*on period of 30 years ap- plicable to Government property.

16. However, upon a careful scru*ny of the evidence on record, this Court ﬁnds that the said founda*onal plea has not been substan*ated. The rev- enue record produced by the plain*ﬀs themselves commences only from the year 1974-75. These entries indicate that the ownership of the suit property vested in Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, and Baljit Singh was recorded in posses- sion as a non-occupancy tenant. There is a conspicuous absence of any docu- mentary evidence prior to 1974-75. Even during the appellate stage, when an applica*on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was ﬁled, the plain*ﬀs themselves ad- mi9ed that no earlier revenue record was available. Thus, the asser*on of pos- session since April, 1968 remains uncorroborated by any contemporaneous documentary evidence.

17. The oral evidence led by the plain*ﬀs also fails to inspire conﬁd- ence. PW-1, Gurpreet Singh, being only 28 years of age at the *me of his depos- i*on in 2001, could not have had personal knowledge of events allegedly occur- ring in 1968. PW-2 Kishore Chand admi9edly was not present at the *me, when possession was allegedly taken, as he deposed that the same occurred in the

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

presence of his father. PW-3 Hari Ram, examined in 2002, though claimed pos- session of plain*ﬀs since 1968, contradicted himself during cross-examina*on by sta*ng that the possession was only for the last 30 years i.e., from 1972. Thus, the oral tes*mony is inconsistent, hearsay in nature, and insuﬃcient to establish con*nuous possession from 1968.

18. Much reliance has been placed by the plain*ﬀs on the legal no*ce (Ex.P1) and its reply (Ex.P2). While it is correct that in the reply, the defendant admi9ed the possession of the plain*ﬀs, there is no categorical admission that such possession dates back to 13.04.1968. Even if the absence of speciﬁc denial is construed as an admission in terms of pleadings, the same cannot be treated as conclusive proof in a case of this nature.

19. It is trite law that a claim of adverse possession, par*cularly against the Government or a public authority, must be proved with a higher degree of certainty and strictness. Mere long possession or vague asser*ons cannot sub- s*tute for clear, cogent, and convincing evidence demonstra*ng all essen*al in- gredients of adverse possession, namely, possession that is actual, open, con- *nuous, hos*le, and to the knowledge of the true owner.

20. In Ravinder Kumar Grewal's Case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cau*oned that courts should be circumspect in conferring *tle by ad- verse possession, especially in respect of property dedicated to public use. It was observed that such proper*es are o7en subject to encroachments, and permiRng rights to accrue by adverse possession in such cases would defeat public interest.

21. Further, in R.Hanumaiah's Case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession against Government land. It was held that mere occupa*on or sporadic entries in revenue record are insuﬃcient; and that the claimant must establish con*nu- ous, open, hos*le possession with the requisite animus for the en*re statutory period, and such possession must be clearly established by reliable evidence.

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

The Court further emphasized that vague or doubPul asser*ons, or entries pro- cured without proper veriﬁca*on, cannot be relied upon to defeat the *tle of the State.

22. The principle is further reinforced in Thankappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), wherein it was held that proper*es reserved for public pur- poses, such as water bodies or common u*li*es, are held by the State in trust for the public under the public trust doctrine. In such cases, the concept of ad- verse possession is severely restricted, as the claimant must establish hos*lity not only against the State but also against the beneﬁcial interest of the general public, a requirement which is, in prac*cal terms, nearly impossible to sa*sfy.

23. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court ﬁnds no inﬁrmity in the ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below.

24.1 Firstly, the plain*ﬀs have failed to prove their possession since April, 1968. The absence of documentary evidence prior to 1974-75, coupled with unreliable oral tes*mony, renders their claim untenable.

24.2 Secondly, the revenue entries showing possession of Baljit Singh even a7er his death in 1980 seriously dent the credibility of the revenue record. Had the plain*ﬀs actually succeeded to his possession, the entries ought to have reﬂected such succession. The con*nued recording of a deceased person's possession indicates that such entries are not based on actual physical posses- sion and, therefore, cannot be safely relied upon.

24.3 Thirdly, the nature of the land, as established by the Khasra Girdawari entries and supported by photographic evidence and the report of the Naib Tehsildar, reveals that the suit property is largely 'Gair Mumkin' land, with a por*on being used as a pond and for disposal of sewage and garbage. In such circumstances, possession, if any, cannot be a9ributed to the plain*ﬀs; rather, possession follows *tle, and the defendant, being the recorded owner, is deemed to be in possession.

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

24.4 Fourthly, the plain*ﬀs have failed to examine any oﬃcial from the Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, which was the original owner of the suit property prior to its ves*ng in the Municipal Council, Sunam. Such evidence would have been crucial to establish the alleged possession since 1968. The omission to lead such best evidence raises an adverse inference against the plain*ﬀs.

24.5 Lastly, even assuming that the plain*ﬀs were in possession, such possession is clearly unauthorized and in the nature of trespass. It is well se9led that a trespasser cannot seek protec*on of possession against the true owner, par*cularly when the owner is a public authority.

25. Conclusion : In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plain*ﬀs have failed to establish the essen*al in- gredients of adverse possession. The concurrent ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia*on of evidence and correct applica- *on of law and do not suﬀer from any perversity or illegality warran*ng any in- terference under Sec*on 100 CPC.

26. Consequently, all the substan*al ques*ons of law are answered against the appellants. The present appeal is held to be devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 06.04.2026 Nee ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes

Uploaded on.: 07.04.2026