The Delhi High Court today put an end to over three-decade-old litigations by dismissing the plea of legal heirs of three persons claiming ownership over various pieces of land belonging to the Jamia Milia Islamia University here.
"We find no merit in appeals which are dismissed," a bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Suresh Kait said.
The bench rejected the plea of legal heirs of Rustam, Mawasee and Shafique Hassan, who died during protracted court battles, that the land, measuring around 0.337 acres, belonged to them on the ground of "adverse possession" (legal doctrine which creates a right over the property on the ground of possession only).
"We do not go into the issue whether the period of adverse possession qua the immovable property of Jamia Milia would be 30 years or 12 years but would simply highlight the fact that there is no evidence that after the appellants (claimants) lost on the issue of title, they did any act asserting title to the subject land."
"We highlight that mere reiteration of possession is neither here nor there. It assumes importance to note that the appellants have simply opened the doors of their houses to trespass upon abutting land belonging to Jamia Milia Islamia, possession whereof is being sought to be recovered by the university," the bench said.
Justice Nandrajog, writing the judgement, said the claims over the university land was an attempt to trespass and upheld the verdicts delivered by the single-judge bench and the lower court on the issue.
The issues, to be decided in the petitions, were framed in 1978 and later it was held that the "title was proved to be in the name of Jamia Milia Islamia".
"Jamia Milia Islamia had two options. To take forcible possession as the embargo over the University was no longer operative or take recourse to action contemplated by law. Probably, for the reason a large number of persons trespassed different parcels of land and each claimed benefit of the possession report of January 25, 1953, Jamia Milia Islamia was advised to file a suit for recovery ....," it said.
The court said the claimants cannot take the plea that they were in possession of the land for a longer period and moreover, the University did not stake its claim.
"It is true that proceedings were initiated in 1997 but relevant would it be to state that post-1970, till the year 1980, it was the appellants who had, under court orders, prevented Jamia Milia Islamia to regain possession and thus the appellants cannot claim benefit of said period...," it said.
The court said nothing was produced on records by the claimants to prove their title over the encroached land.
"In what manner have the appellants asserted title, what acts have been done by them to assert title, none have been pleaded and indeed none exists. It is a simple case of an owner of a building putting a hedge or a boundary wall on the abutting land and probably putting a chair or two thereon to bask in the sun. We doubt whether this would constitute an act of hostile title," it said.
All and sundry defences were raised before the Estate Officer, including the plea that the forefathers of the appellants had acquired title to the subject land by prescriptions, it said.
The encroached piece of land was a part of land comprising 24 bigha and 11 biswa, which actually belonged to the university.
Dismissing the petitions, the court said a large number of persons are attempting to use the same possession report to justify their occupation of land belonging to the University.
"We find no merit in appeals which are dismissed," a bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Suresh Kait said.
The bench rejected the plea of legal heirs of Rustam, Mawasee and Shafique Hassan, who died during protracted court battles, that the land, measuring around 0.337 acres, belonged to them on the ground of "adverse possession" (legal doctrine which creates a right over the property on the ground of possession only).
"We do not go into the issue whether the period of adverse possession qua the immovable property of Jamia Milia would be 30 years or 12 years but would simply highlight the fact that there is no evidence that after the appellants (claimants) lost on the issue of title, they did any act asserting title to the subject land."
"We highlight that mere reiteration of possession is neither here nor there. It assumes importance to note that the appellants have simply opened the doors of their houses to trespass upon abutting land belonging to Jamia Milia Islamia, possession whereof is being sought to be recovered by the university," the bench said.
Justice Nandrajog, writing the judgement, said the claims over the university land was an attempt to trespass and upheld the verdicts delivered by the single-judge bench and the lower court on the issue.
The issues, to be decided in the petitions, were framed in 1978 and later it was held that the "title was proved to be in the name of Jamia Milia Islamia".
"Jamia Milia Islamia had two options. To take forcible possession as the embargo over the University was no longer operative or take recourse to action contemplated by law. Probably, for the reason a large number of persons trespassed different parcels of land and each claimed benefit of the possession report of January 25, 1953, Jamia Milia Islamia was advised to file a suit for recovery ....," it said.
The court said the claimants cannot take the plea that they were in possession of the land for a longer period and moreover, the University did not stake its claim.
"It is true that proceedings were initiated in 1997 but relevant would it be to state that post-1970, till the year 1980, it was the appellants who had, under court orders, prevented Jamia Milia Islamia to regain possession and thus the appellants cannot claim benefit of said period...," it said.
The court said nothing was produced on records by the claimants to prove their title over the encroached land.
"In what manner have the appellants asserted title, what acts have been done by them to assert title, none have been pleaded and indeed none exists. It is a simple case of an owner of a building putting a hedge or a boundary wall on the abutting land and probably putting a chair or two thereon to bask in the sun. We doubt whether this would constitute an act of hostile title," it said.
All and sundry defences were raised before the Estate Officer, including the plea that the forefathers of the appellants had acquired title to the subject land by prescriptions, it said.
The encroached piece of land was a part of land comprising 24 bigha and 11 biswa, which actually belonged to the university.
Dismissing the petitions, the court said a large number of persons are attempting to use the same possession report to justify their occupation of land belonging to the University.
No comments:
Post a Comment