No occupier could acquire title of a waterbody or any land reserved for public purposes despite being in adverse possession of it beyond the statutory period of 30 years, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
The court was hearing a second appeal preferred by Thankappan, who had filed an original suit before the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari district, in 1992 for declaration of title and permanent injunction for 40 cents of land.
The trial court decreed the suit to the extent of 5 cents alone. Kanniyakumari district authorities in 2002 filed a first appeal before the sub-court. Challenging it, Thankappan filed the second appeal in 2005.
The appellant contended that the land was located with definite boundaries and he was in possession of it for more than 30 years. There were coconut, cashew and mango trees on the land, which was wrongly classified as ‘odai poramboke’. He said even if it was classified as odai poramboke, he was in possession of it for more than 30 years and had acquired the title by adverse possession.
The State submitted that the land was classified as odai poramboke and the appellant was not entitled to claim any adverse possession of the government property.
Justice R. Vijayakumar observed that whenever a property was classified and reserved for any public purposes like waterbody, road, park, etc, the government was the trustee of it.
The government had a right of its administration and maintenance. The government was the legal owner and the beneficial ownership vested in the general public.
The occupier should prove his animus not only against the legal owner but also against the beneficial owners (general public). When the occupier himself was a beneficial owner, the question of acquiring the title by adverse possession did not arise at all, the judge said.
The occupier could plead and prove the title by adverse possession only as long as the government property remained a government poramboke, not being reserved for any public purposes, the court said.
The private rights of an individual to acquire title by adverse possession could not be upheld when they were put up against the public rights of the beneficial owners, the court said and dismissed the second appeal.
