The 22nd Law Commission headed by Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (retd) has recommended to the government that there was no need to introduce changes in the law relating to adverse possession of land.

Law on adverse possession

• The law on adverse possession provides that any person who is in possession of a private land for more than 12 years or a government land for over 30 years can gain ownership of the property. A legal heir can only make a claim by filing a suit for recovery within the prescribed period.

• The concept of adverse possession has been a part of Indian legal framework for a very long time. It is rooted in the idea that land must not be left vacant and instead be put to judicious use. 

• The law on adverse possession underwent a significant change post the enactment of the Limitation Act of 1963. By virtue of the said change, the position of the true owner was fortified as he had to merely prove his title, while the burden of proof of adverse possession shifted on the person claiming so.

• The Supreme Court, in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others (2009) and State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar and Others (2011), observed that there is a need to have a fresh look at the law of adverse possession and recommended that the Union of India seriously consider the issue and make suitable changes, wherever necessary. 

• The 19th Law Commission prepared a Consultation Paper-cum-Questionnaire and post receiving the responses to the same, it  opined that the present provisions afforded sufficient protection to the true owner of land and there was no need to make any amendments in the law. However, a final report on the subject could not be submitted then.

• Bearing in mind the relevance and importance of the subject and the fact that this reference had been pending since 2008, the 22nd Law Commission considered it expedient to deliberate afresh over the subject.

Key points noted by the 22nd Law Commission

• If the executing or controlling agency of government lands is not acting promptly and properly to prevent any encroachment, it does not mean that the law itself is bad.

• The law is not meant for the benefit of the State or the government but for the public at large. Hence, it cannot be termed as colonial.

• Removing the law of adverse possession in respect of government lands would lead to a chaotic situation, leading to a lot of instability as the people will not be able to crystallize their rights, with generation after generation living under the threat of eviction.

• The concept of adverse possession is very much prevalent in many foreign jurisdictions.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store