This brings the Court to the question of the onus of the Plaintiffs of proving their ownership of the suit property. It is well-settled that in cases of government land, there is a greater responsibility of Courts in ascertaining title of third parties. In fact, the plaintiff in such cases must establish his clear right, title and nature of possession in the property, superior to that of the Government authority and there is a presumption in favour of the Government. In such cases, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that it is not sufficient to show possession or adverse possession merely by some stray revenue entries or records. This position was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in R. Hanumaiah and Ors. v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors., (2010) SCC 203:
“Nature of proof required in suits for declaration of title against the Government {Para 30}
15. Suits for declaration of title against the government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the government, is not available to any person or individual. The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession have to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against government. This follows from Article 112 of Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire state and it is not always possible for the government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the government. Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements.
16. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to government properties. Instances of such suits against government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years. In such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted. A court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the government : whether the plaintiff has produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title.
Incidental to that question, the court should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the revenue records or municipal records, for more than thirty years, and what is the nature of possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession - authorized or unauthorized; permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed or implied (following a title).
17. Mere temporary use or occupation without the animus to claim ownership or mere use at sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right adverse to the Government. In order to oust or defeat the title of the government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the government or establish perfection of title by adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years with the knowledge of the government. To claim adverse possession, the possession of the claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the owner) and continued during the entire period necessary to create a bar under the law of limitation. In short, it should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient. Unexplained stray or sporadic entries for a year or for a few years will not be sufficient and should be ignored. As noticed above, many a time it is possible for a private citizen to get his name entered as the occupant of government land, with the help of collusive government servants. Only entries based on appropriate documents like grants, title deeds etc. or based upon actual verification of physical possession by an authority authorized to recognize such possession and make appropriate entries can be used against the government. By its very nature, a claim based on adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence, much more so, if it is against the government. Be that as it may.”
31. Thus, the Plaintiffs had a heavy onus to establish the following:
(i) That they had acquired the suit property through legally recognized documents such as registered sale deed, allotment from governmental authorities, etc. However, no such documents were produced by the Plaintiffs.
(ii) That the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property which falls in Khasra No.48/7 – this ought to have been established by positive evidence and not by an inference.
(iii) That the Plaintiffs had to rely on documents proved in accordance with law, even to establish possession – however, in this case, only some spattering revenue records which were marked and not even exhibited, were relied upon by the Plaintiffs.
32. The plaint in the present case is bereft of any pleadings as to how ownership/title was acquired by the Plaintiffs to the land in question. It is relevant to note that even paragraph 2 of the plaint shows the manner in which the Plaintiffs state that the suit property is not acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and was not handed over to the DDA. This reflects the
state of mind of the Plaintiffs who seem to have themselves had an apprehension that the suit property may be falling in the acquired portion of the land.
36. In view of the above settled legal position, that mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue records cannot confer title, and the facts mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that there is any substantial question of law which deserves to be adjudicated upon in the present second appeal. In fact, from the evidence which has emerged from the record, it is clear that apart from some mention in khasra girdawaris, there are no other concrete documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff to discharge the heavy onus that is placed on him.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RSA 64/2020
NATHU RAM Vs D.D.A & ANR
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Date of decision: 01st February, 2022
Read full Judgment here : Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment