The principle of adverse possession (popularly known as the “squatter’s rights”) has always been a contentious doctrine in law, especially in India. This doctrine permits a person to acquire ownership of land or property, without the original owner’s consent, if they openly and continuously possess it for a certain length of time. Recent Judgement in 2024 by the Indian Supreme Court has paved new light upon this age-old principle facet, elucidating the conditions under which a person can acquire title, by way of adverse possession. Meanwhile, let’s dissect this week’s Supreme Court decision on adverse possession and what it means in practice.
What is Adverse Possession?
Adverse possession is a legal doctrine enabling a person to claim a property right in land owned by another who has been in possession of the land or property for a certain period of time without the consent of the rightful owner. The time to establish a claim generally depends upon the jurisdiction, in Indian context 12 years period for adverse possession. But, crucially, this is not about continuous occupation — it has to be hostile, open and exclusive.
India also has had alerts of adverse possession but portions of land took years or even decades of human occupation, making it difficult to belong to the true owner particularly where the respective claims are in opposition. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided some of the most contested elements of this doctrine, signaling a major shift in the treatment of future claims of adverse possession.
Adverse Possession: The Supreme Court Decision of 2024
In 2024, the Supreme Court of India pronounced an important judgment, which supposedly invigorated the law on adverse possession. The court held that “the mere long possession of land for 12 years will not entitle the possessor as of right to claim ownership of the land if his possession is not openly hostile to the rights of the original owner.” The court wanted to clarify how “hostile possession” worked, holding that anyone attempting to establish adverse possession must show continuous occupation that is also adverse to the rights of the owner, without having acknowledged the title of the owner.
The Supreme Court decision made it more difficult for any who wished to claim ownership through adverse possession. They need to show not only physical occupation but a deliberate and notorious repudiation of the owner’s title. The Court also made clear that one could not claim adverse possession against the government. No land has ever been acquired through adverse possession if that land is the property of the state.
What to Know About the Decision
Burden of Proof: This places the burden of proof on the individual asserting a claim of adverse possession. Not only must there be proof of possession, but that the possessor’s possession has also been hostile and adverse to the rightful owner’s rights.
State Land Exception: The Supreme Court also clarified that no title can be claimed through adverse possession, except for government land. This has an importance in context of encroachments from public land and property.
12-Year Possession Rule: The Court, while affirming the 12-year rule of adverse possession, clarified that mere possession does not amount to ownership unless other elements such as non-violability, continuity, and public presence are fulfilled.
Impact on Real Estate: The decision affects real estate transactions, especially for buyers and property developers. It emphasizes the need to confirm clean titles and that properties are not under illegal occupation.
Why the 2024 Ruling Matters
In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in 2024, the concept of adverse possession is completely reformulated in Indian property law. Here are some of the top reasons why this ruling matters:
Defending Property Rights: This ruling reinforces the rights of bona fide property owners and restricts the ability of intruders to obtain ownership simply by staying on the land.
Providing Legal Certainty: The Supreme Court, by laying down a clear principle on the basis of which adverse possession claims would be entertained, has provided property owners greater clarity and security. This transparency is essential for real estate investments and real estate property transactions.
Urbanisation means that cities are aware of the risks of squatter settlements and encroachment. By ruling against adverse possession claims on government land, the Court can deter illegal occupation of government land and promote urban planning policies.
Statistics Relating to Claims of Adverse Possession
A NAREDCO (National Real Estate Development Council) report for the year 2023 reveals that claims for adverse possession comprise nearly 30% of all property claims in India. Many of these conflicts are over government land or private land occupied for decades. But following the Supreme Court’s recent decision, that number is likely to drop in the future, as courts now will have an even higher bar to meet in one of these claims.
Additionally, another research by Indian Journal of Law and Technology observed that the upsurge of adverse possession claims, primarily in urban cities has resulted into a 20% escalation of property right disputes within the decade. This figure adds to the importance of the judgement in 2024, which should simplify the process of resolving these disputes.
Conclusion
The 2024 Supreme Court judgement adverse possession — a turning point in India’s property law. An increased burden on proof against claimants thereunder by adverse possession will serve to more adequately weigh the equally deserving interest in protecting legitimate titles against the harm of adverse possession that have been long in place. Consequently, this judgement is likely to disentangle many frivolous claims, especially in matters pertaining to government land, and will leave an enduring mark on the domain of real estate throughout India.
Whether you are an owner, a buyer or a law practitioner, it is crucial to have a detailed understanding of adverse possession to deal with Indian property rights effectively. Stay updated, and make yourself prepared to tackle property disputes in this transforming legal framework.