Himachal High Court rejects CSIR’s petition seeking possession of land after three decades

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that seeking possession of land after a delay of nearly three decades is legally unsustainable.

The court recently dismissed petitions filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR-IHBT), Palampur, in connection with a long-standing land dispute with some tenants occupying its land at Palampur in Kangra district.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma observed that legal rights could not be enforced after prolonged inaction. The Bench stated that the law assisted those who remain vigilant about their rights rather than those who neglected them for decades.

The dispute relates to a piece of land acquired in 1966 for the establishment of the National Institute of Biological Research in Palampur, a project associated with the CSIR. According to court records, the land acquisition award was passed in July 1966. As per the rules governing acquisition proceedings, the acquiring authority was required to take the possession of land within six weeks of the award.

However, the court noted that though the acquisition award had been issued and compensation paid, the authorities concerned failed to take the actual physical possession of the land for an extended period. During this time, the occupants continued to remain on the property and even raised construction there without any effective intervention from the authorities concerned.

The High Court observed that the respondents had been occupying the land continuously since 1966 without obstruction. Over time, their uninterrupted possession led to the establishment of rights under the legal doctrine of adverse possession, which recognizes ownership claims arising from long, uninterrupted occupation when the lawful owner fails to assert rights within a reasonable time.

The Bench also upheld the earlier decision of the District Collector, who had rejected the CSIR’s request for taking possession of the land after a delay of 23 years. The Collector had termed the application legally untenable because the occupants had already established adverse possession over the property.

Court records reveal that the CSIR had first approached the civil court in 1989, seeking the possession of the land. However, the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the respondents had already acquired possession rights through continuous occupation. Later, in 2013, a Single Judge Bench of the High Court had also declined to grant relief to the petitioners under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which deals with the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings under some circumstances.

While hearing the present petitions, the Division Bench referred to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Indore Development Authority case, which clarified that land acquisition did not automatically lapse merely because physical possession had not been taken if compensation had already been paid.