AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 559 ::2012 AIR SCW 276 ::(2011) 2 CLR 905 (SC) ::(2012) 115 RevDec 349 ::(2012) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 32 ::(2012) 4 CivLJ 142 ::(2011) 3 All RentCas 655 ::(2011) 4 CivilCourtC 706 ::2011 (10) SCC 404 ::2012 (1) RecCivR 17 ::(2011) 11 Scale 266 ::AIR 2012 SC (Civil) 325 ::(2012) 2 AndhLD 101 ::2012 (90) All LR 216 ::(2012) 5 Cal HN 740 ::2012 (1) All WC 997 ::2012 (1) CalLJ 129 ::2011 (3) GujLH 592 ::(2011) 5 Mad LW 725 ::2011 (8) MadLJ768 ::(2012) 1 JCR 280 (SC) ::(2012) 1 KCCR 26 ::2011 (4) Ker LT 70 SN ::2012 (2) RajLW 1280

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma , JJ

Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.64, Art.65— Adverse possession - Illegal acquisition of land by State authorities by way of adverse possession - Such 'bad faith' adverse possession should be abolished - Urgent suitable changes in law of adverse possession recommended. India inherited law of adverse possession from the British. Supreme Court directed, the Parliament would consider abolishing the law of adverse possession or at least amending and making substantial changes in law in the larger public interest. The Government instrumentalities, including the police, in the instant case attempted to possess land aversely. This is a testament to the absurdity of the law and a black mark upon the justice system's legitimacy. The Government should protect the property of a citizen - not steal it. And yet, as the law currently stands, they may do just that. If this law is to be retained, according to the wisdom of the Parliament, then at least the law must require those who adversely possess land to compensate title owners according to the prevalent market rate of the land or property in question. This alternative would provide some semblance of justice to those who have done nothing other than sitting on their rights for the statutory period, while allowing the adverse possessor to ramain on property. While it may be indefensible to require all adverse possessors....