The Law of Adverse Possession in West Bengal in 2024 is subject to stringent requirements to protect the rights of property owners.

The Law of Adverse Possession in West Bengal

“Adverse Possession” is a legal concept granting title to someone who possesses another’s land under certain conditions. Also known as squatter’s rights, it requires continuous possession without infringing on the owner’s rights. The process involves demonstrating criteria like continuous use and exclusive possession. It applies not only to physical land but also to other properties like intellectual or digital assets. Landowners can take precautions to prevent adverse possession in West Bengal. This legal situation can arise intentionally, with trespassers occupying land, or unintentionally, such as when property boundaries are unknowingly encroached upon. Successful claimants, known as disseisors, gain ownership without compensating the owner.

Adverse Possession Law in West Bengal

The law of Adverse Possession in West Bengal and its implementation is as follows:

1. As stipulated by Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the names of adverse possessors can be recorded on the front page of L.R. Khatian if they have maintained adverse possession for more than 12 uninterrupted years since their initial listing in the R.S. record of rights but overall, the civil court has jurisdiction to determine adverse possession in West Bengal.

• Regarding plots sold by previous adverse possessors where new purchasers now hold possession, the matter is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in conjunction with Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In cases where the present petitioner, or purchaser, asserts title and cites previous possession by their predecessor, it falls upon them to demonstrate that their predecessor had possessed the properties for over 12 years since being recorded as an adverse possessor. This entails proving uninterrupted adverse possession in West Bengal for the stated duration. Notably, if exclusion occurred due to different trespassers but maintained continuity for over 12 years, relief may be sought on both proprietary and possessory grounds. The burden of proving proprietary title rests with the purchaser, suggesting resolution through the Civil Court for determining the purchaser’s title from the adverse possessors.

• Surveys and Joint Land Reforms Commissioner, addressed the process of recording adverse possessors’ names in L.R. Khatian. A query arose about whether adverse possessors noted could be recorded on the front page after possessing land continuously for over 12 years, previously confirmed by a circular issued on September 19, 1994. Upon reconsideration, taking into account legal provisions, Revenue Officer jurisdiction, and opinions of the LD. L.R., it was noted that land ownership through adverse possession is legally recognized if unused land is made productive and the owner takes no action within 12 years. However, it was debated whether Revenue Officers were authorized to decide land titles. Referring to a judgment from the High Court of Calcutta, it was concluded that the recording of adverse possessors’ involvement title to the land falls under the Civil Court’s jurisdiction. Director of Land Records & Surveys and Joint Land Reform Commissioner has made it clear through a circular issued on January 10, 2018 that only Civil Court has the right to decide whether an adverse possessor can have the title of the land.

• Mere dispossession does not automatically imply adverse possession; the latter requires a hostile and notorious possession that challenges the owner’s title. Mere possession for 12 years or more does not constitute adverse possession.

• The Government of West Bengal, through the Office of the Director of Land Records & Surveys & Joint Reforms Commissioner, located at 35 Gopalnagar Road, Alipore, Kolkata-700027, issued communication No. 10/5189/C/05 (B/S) on June 30, 2005, addressed to the ADM & District Land & Land Reforms Officer of North 24-Parganas. The letter solicits instructions concerning lands occupied by local clubs, voluntary organizations, religious institutions, etc., referring to a previous memorandum dated April 10, 2005. It asserts that lands occupied by such entities constitute cases of adverse possession and unauthorized possession, which should not be included in the record of rights. Emphasizing that recording such disputed possessions in the Record of Rights (R.O.Rs) will not resolve the associated law and order problems, the directive suggests leaving the matter for settlement among the involved parties and urges the recipient to take appropriate action in accordance with the instructions.

Therefore, adverse possession in West Bengal by Local clubs, Voluntary organisation or Religious Institutions can only be determined by the parties involved through a civil court and not by local authorities, land reform or land revenue officers.

Current Case Law and Principles of Adverse Possession in West Bengal

The law of Adverse Possession in West Bengal is criticized for rarely ruling in favour of possessors due to contradictory requirements, leading to costly litigation for true owners and overburdening courts. Arguments supporting the law, such as Larissa Katz’s morality analogy, are deemed invalid as land prices soar and landowners can easily monetize their properties.

Moreover, land laws already exist to assist the poor, making adverse possession unnecessary and prone to abuse by powerful interest groups. Given these reasons and numerous court refusals of adverse possession claims, it’s concluded that the law serves little purpose and may encourage dishonesty. Thus, there’s a call to review and possibly abolish this provision, as done in other countries, to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation.

Let’s discuss this in details by studying a few recent case laws and principles of Adverse Possession:

1. In the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHER’S, (2011)  the court held responsible and fined the State of Haryana of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to be deposited within four weeks from the date of passing the judgment, by dismissing the frivolous petition. The court found the State of Haryana guilty of depriving the legal owners of the land by grabbing it in a stealthy manner.

The court has also urged for an immediate re-evaluation of the entire law concerning adverse possession. They advised the Union of India to promptly review and carefully contemplate either abolishing the law or making necessary amendments. They forwarded a copy of this verdict to the Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, for requisite action in compliance with legal procedures.

Observation of the Court: The Parliament should seriously contemplate the abolition of “bad faith” adverse possession, referring to cases where possession is obtained through intentional trespassing. In this particular case, the plaintiff did not contest the defendants’ title denial, and the specific date when the alleged adverse possession began was not provided, making it difficult to determine the starting point for limitation.

If those responsible for upholding the law engage in property grabbing, it undermines public trust and can lead to widespread chaos. The State’s revenue records indicate that the disputed property is registered under the defendants’ names. It is regrettable that the Superintendent of Police, a senior member of the Indian Police Service, repeatedly attempted to seize the property from its rightful owner by filing multiple appeals, claiming ownership through adverse possession.

2. In the case of RAM NAGINA RAI & ANR V DEO KUMAR RAI (DECEASED) BY LRS & ANR, (2019) the defendant’s claim of ownership through adverse possession was dismissed, with the court noting that according to Section 65 of the Limitations Act, 1963, adverse possession must be effectively communicated, even impliedly, to the true property owner, demonstrating a hostile attitude openly known to the owner. The court emphasized that mere possession by the defendants cannot automatically constitute adverse possession over the property, as this would violate the fundamental rights of the rightful owner. No evidence was presented to indicate that the defendants’ initially permissive possession later turned adverse to the owner’s interests.

On the contrary, records showed that the defendants’ possession remained permissive up to the filing of the lawsuit. Additionally, documents presented by the defendants, such as tax receipts and khatian extracts, were deemed insufficient by the Trial Court, as they did not accurately pertain to the suit property. Moreover, chaukidari receipts lacked relevant details regarding the suit property’s khatian.

Observation of the Court: The Court emphasized the need for a thorough review of the legal framework concerning adverse possession by the Union of India, urging for necessary amendments to address the inadequacies of the current law. Furthermore, it highlighted that the right to property transcends mere constitutional or statutory provisions, asserting its status as a fundamental human right deserving of utmost attention.

Recent reform recommendations for Adverse Possession in West Bengal

In the case law of Ravindra Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur, (2019) several principles emerge. Firstly, the cardinal principle of property law emphasizes that possession, once legally acquired, cannot be forcibly taken away except under lawful authority, underscoring the maxim that “possession is nine points in law.” In such situations, remedies include initiating a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, or seeking protection of possession under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in disputes over immovable properties.

Secondly, an adverse possessor can protect their possession against anyone except the owner, even before 12 years have elapsed, while after 12 years, the adverse possessor may acquire the owner’s rights, title, and interest, utilizing adverse possession as both a sword and a shield under Articles 65 and 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, respectively. Thirdly, if an adverse possessor is ousted, subsequent adverse possessors inherit identical rights after 12 years, but cannot combine their periods of possession. Finally, legal heirs of an adverse possessor can combine earlier periods of adverse possession in West Bengal to complete the requisite 12 years, provided certain conditions are met as outlined by the Full Bench.

Overview of the Adverse Possession Law in West Bengal

In conclusion, the examination of adverse possession law in West Bengal reveals a nuanced legal landscape governed by various statutes and judicial interpretations. While the law acknowledges adverse possession under specific conditions, its application is subject to stringent requirements to protect the rights of property owners. Recent case laws and principles underscore the complexities involved, highlighting the importance of clarity and consistency in legal proceedings.

Moreover, recommendations for reform, including potential abolition or amendment of adverse possession provisions, underscore ongoing debates surrounding property rights and legal fairness. As the legal discourse evolves, it is essential to strike a balance between safeguarding legitimate property interests and addressing concerns of equity and justice in land tenure systems.

For further assistance or any other legal help, contact here.