Possession does not confer ownership: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that mere possession of excess land does not confer its ownership rights on an allottee. The assertion came as Justice Anil Kshetarpal set aside concurrent findings by the lower courts declaring plot holders owner of excess land.
Allowing the regular second appeal filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and another appellant in 1998, Justice Kshetarpal ruled that delivery of excess area and its possession would not confer ownership upon the plot holders.
The Bench was of the view that the courts below erred in declaring the plaintiff plot holders to be owner of 7,620 sq yard plot on the basis of delivery of possession, indemnity bonds and sanction of building plan. All these three documents were not sufficient to confer ownership of immovable property, the court asserted.
The plot with a tentative area of 5,000 sq yards in Faridabad was initially allotted in 1969. But possession of 7,620 sq yards was delivered to the allottee in 1973. Permission to transfer the plot to two persons was subsequently granted in 1974.
The plot holders then filed a suit claiming ownership over the entire 7,620 sq yards based on possession, indemnity bonds, and building plan sanctions. HUDA contested the suit on the ground that the possession was wrongly delivered. The plot measuring 4,620 sq yards was sold.
The trial court and first appellate court, however, upheld the claim, ruling that possession and permission to construct the building established their ownership.
After hearing advocate Arvind Seth for HUDA and the rival contentions, Justice Kshetarpal reversed the findings.
The court categorically held that possession alone, even if given erroneously, did not confer title. There was no reference to 7,620 sq yard plot. The delivery of possession of excess area would not confer ownership upon the plaintiffs, the Bench ruled.
“Even if an official of HUDA committed mistake, it would not be sufficient to vest the immovable property in favour of the plaintiffs. The possession of plot was delivered by the Divisional Town Planner, Sector 15, Faridabad. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the Administrator, HUDA. There is no declaration that plaintiffs or their predecessor had become owner of the plot measuring 7,620 sq yard. It only proves that plaintiffs were in permissive possession”.
The court also rejected ownership claim through adverse possession, stating that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the legal requirements to establish an adverse claim against HUDA.
