Adverse possession: What is it, what has the Law Commission said about it

Source: This summary is based on the article “ Adverse possession: What is it, what has the Law Commission said about it“, published in The Indian Express on 6th June 2023.

What is the News?

The 22nd Law Commission of India, led by former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Ritu Raj Awasthi, recently recommended against any changes to the laws on adverse possession.

What is adverse possession?

Adverse possession refers to the occupation of land that one does not own. The occupation should be continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful to be declared as adverse possession.

The report suggests that an original title holder who neglects to enforce their rights over the land cannot re-enter it after a long time has passed.

About adverse possession law

Adverse possession laws have their roots in the Hammurabi Code of 2000 BC. But modern laws inherited from colonial India’s interpretation of the Property Limitation Act, 1874.

The 1963 Limitation Act further refined these laws in India, shifting the burden of proof to the person claiming adverse possession.

Under the Limitation Act, 1963, any person in possession of private land for over 12 years or government land for over 30 years can become the owner of that property.

It means the original title holder must claim the land within the mentioned time period.

What was the Supreme Court ruling?

SC in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan case, observed that the law of adverse possession “ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation” and is “irrational, illogical, and wholly disproportionate”.

Following this observation, the Law Commission was asked by the Ministry of Law and Justice to examine the matter. While the Commission’s conclusion was to maintain the status quo on the law of adverse possession, two of its ex officio members disagreed.

What are the arguments against this law?

Two ex officio members of the Law Commission disagreed with the report, arguing that the law promotes false claims and doesn’t stand judicial scrutiny.

They suggest that the law should be removed, citing the burden it places on the court system and the unnecessary challenges it poses for the true owners of the land.