SQUATTER’S RIGHTS AND ADVERSE POSSESSION IN INDIA
Squatter’s Rights and Adverse Possession in India
Introduction
Squatter’s rights and adverse possession are legal doctrines that allow a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions. In India, these concepts are rooted in the principle that land should not remain idle or unused. The doctrine of adverse possession provides that if a person occupies land belonging to another for a specific period without interruption, they may gain legal ownership of that land.
Legal Framework in India
- The Limitation Act, 1963: Adverse possession is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. According to Section 27, read with Articles 64 and 65 of the Act, the original owner’s right to recover possession of the property is extinguished if they do not take action within the prescribed limitation period.
- Period of Limitation: The limitation period for adverse possession is 12 years for private property and 30 years for government-owned property. The clock starts ticking from the date the squatter took possession of the property.
Conditions for Adverse Possession
To successfully claim adverse possession, certain conditions must be met:
- Actual Possession: The squatter must have physical possession of the property, meaning they have taken control of the land.
- Open and Notorious Possession: The possession must be visible and obvious to anyone, including the rightful owner. It cannot be secretive.
- Hostile Possession: The squatter must possess the property without the permission of the rightful owner. The possession must be adverse to the interests of the true owner.
- Continuous and Uninterrupted Possession: The squatter must maintain possession of the property without interruption for the entire limitation period.
Case Law
Several landmark judgments have shaped the doctrine of adverse possession in India:
- Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004): The Supreme Court held that the plea of adverse possession must be specific and cannot be vague. The person claiming adverse possession must provide clear evidence that the possession was adverse to the true owner.
- P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007): The Supreme Court emphasized that adverse possession must be peaceful, open, and continuous. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming adverse possession.
Criticism and Reform
- Criticism: The doctrine of adverse possession has been criticized for rewarding illegal occupation and punishing the rightful owner. It is argued that the law should protect the interests of the true owner rather than favoring those who unlawfully occupy land.
- Calls for Reform: There have been calls for reforming the law to strike a balance between protecting property rights and preventing land from remaining idle. Some suggest reducing the limitation period or introducing additional requirements for claiming adverse possession.
Squatter’s rights and adverse possession remain contentious issues in India. While the doctrine serves to ensure that land is utilized and not left idle, it also raises questions about fairness and justice. The legal framework and judicial interpretations provide a complex landscape for understanding how adverse possession operates in India. As the country continues to develop, the debate over the relevance and fairness of these doctrines is likely to continue, prompting further examination and potential reform.
