BIJA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 44 special appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 24-9-2002 dismissing the writ petitions.

(2.) In the City of Jodhpur, a residential locality is alleged to have developed in the name of Haripura Vyas Colony. It is inhabited in Khasra No. 676 consisting of 92 Bighas and 7 Biswas of land. The inhabitants of the area claim that the colony is in existence for more than 30 years. They have constructed the houses and are living there with their families. They have their family Ration Cards, water and electricity connections and sewerage line connected with the sanitary line constructed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. The names of eligible electors appear in the Voter List of the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha and Municipal Corporation. It is further case of the appellants that the Urban Improvement Trust conducted the survey from time to time and ultimately a decision was taken by the State Government to regularise the possession of the inhabitants by issuing licences and lease deeds in their favour. When the Urban Improvement Trust started issuing lease deeds, objections were raised by the Air Force Station, Jodhpur. It was claimed that the land belongs to the Air Force. When a threat of demolition and dispossession was raised, number of persons residing in the colony approached to the Civil Court, by way of civil suits against the Union of India as well as the Urban Improvement Trust. Jodhpur. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur took a stand that the land belongs to them as such they have a right to regularise the possession of the inhabitants by issuing title deeds in accordance with law. The Civil Court held that even if the plaintiffs are trespassers they can be dispossessed only in accordance with law. The Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Jodhpur by judgment dated 21-4-2001 partly decreed the suit to the aforesaid extent. Thereafter, the Estate Officer, Air Force Station, Jodhpur gave notice under Section 4 of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to about 61 persons. The notices were contested by the petitioners. The Estate Officer passed the order of eviction. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by judgment dated 13-8-2002 dismissed the appeal. The said decisions were challenged by way of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The learned single Judge by an elaborate judgment held that the subject land belongs to the Government of India. The learned Judge also found that the petitioners were trespassers and as such there was no infirmity in the order of the Estate Officer. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions, however, granted four months time for vacating the subject premises.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. P.S. Bhati learned counsel for the appellants that the petitioners have acquired a valuable right on the subject land by adverse possession. It is submitted that the appellants with their families are living in the colony for the last more than 30 years. In support of the contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court. He has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in AIR 2001 SC 700, AIR 2002 SC page 607 (sic), AIR 1988 SC 624, AIR 1951 SC 469, (2002) 3 SCC 258, AIR 1993 SC 276, AIR 1999 SC 1125, AIR 2000 SC 1485, AIR 1982 SC 810 and AIR 1982 SC 135 (sic). In our view none of the decisions referred advance the case of the appellants. The possession alone cannot be said to be sufficient in the eye of law to confer a title upon a person by adverse possession. It is well settled proposition that mere possession of the land, however long it may be, would not ripen into possessory title unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel.