Jeanne Pinto vs Deputy Conservator of Forests and another. Regular First Appeal 988/2013 decided on 6 January 2021.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/358139/1/RFA988-13-06-01-2021.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 30. The provisions of Section 33(2)(iii-a) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, prohibits unauthorized occupation of land for any purpose. Admittedly, the present plaintiff who is a trespasser and encroacher, filed suit claiming forest land by way of adverse possession is not maintainable and admittedly, eviction orders already being passed by the concerned forest authorities have reached finality.
31. It is impossible for the State and its instrumentalities including local authorities to keep everyday vigilance/ watch over vast tracts of open land owned by them or of which they are public trustees. No amount of vigil can stop encroachments and unauthorized occupation of public land by unscrupulous elements, who act like vultures to grab such land, raise illegal constructions and, at times, succeed in manipulating the State apparatus for getting their occupation/possession and construction regularized. Where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the Court is duty bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection. Any laxity in this regard may result in destruction of right/title of the State of immovable property and give an upper hand to encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers.
32. The plaintiff is claiming that she is in continuous possession of the lands for more than 100 years. But no documents have been produced to prove her possession and admittedly, the plaintiff is an encroacher of forest lands and already eviction orders have been passed by the authorities under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and the same has reached finality. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to establish that she acquired title to the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession.
33. The dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Anjanappa and others vs. Somalingappa and another reported in (2006)7 SCC 570, wherein, at paragraph-20, it is held as under: “20. It is well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner’s title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former’s hostile action.”
34. Though the plaintiff claimed that she is in continuous possession for 40 years, the fact remains that she is an encroacher of forest land, as admitted by P.W.1 in the cross-examination, as stated supra. A person who is a trespasser cannot claim adverse possession against the government land, that too a reserve forest land, in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Karnataka Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman, supra.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 