Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that enables a person in continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful, open, and hostile (without permission) possession of immovable property to acquire legal title after the statutory limitation period expires, extinguishing the original owner’s right to recover possession. In India, this is governed by Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extinguishes the owner’s title at the end of the limitation period, and Article 65 of the Schedule (12 years for private property; 30 years where the Government sues as owner (Article 112), along with common law principles.
The doctrine balances two societal goals: rewarding productive use of neglected land and penalizing owners who “sleep on their rights.” However, its dual character—defensive (shield) and offensive (sword)—has sparked intense debate in Indian courts.
Core Elements of Adverse Possession
To succeed, the claimant must prove:
- Actual possession — Physical control over the land.
- Hostile/animus possidendi — Possession without permission and with intent to claim as owner.
- Continuous and uninterrupted — For the full statutory period.
- Open and notorious — Visible enough to put the true owner on notice.
Mere long possession is insufficient; it must be adverse to the true owner’s knowledge.
Adverse Possession as a Shield (Defensive Use)
Traditionally, courts viewed adverse possession primarily as a shield—a defense raised when the true owner sues for possession. After 12 years, the defendant can defeat the claim by proving the limitation period has expired.
Classic examples include:
K.K. Verma v. Union of India** (AIR 1971 SC 112): Continuous possession for over 12 years protected the occupant against the original owner.
Courts like in U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder (AIR 1971 All 35) emphasized it as mainly defensive, not allowing aggressive dispossession of alert owners.
Adverse Possession as a Sword (Offensive Use)
The offensive aspect allows the possessor (as plaintiff) to proactively seek declaration of title, permanent injunction, or recovery if threatened with dispossession.
This was settled by the landmark three-judge bench decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 729. The Supreme Court explicitly held that once title is perfected (owner’s right extinguished under Section 27), the adverse possessor acquires full title and can use it both as a sword and a shield under Article 65 (suits for possession based on title). The Court overruled earlier restrictive views (e.g., Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, 2014) that limited it to a shield only.
Key reasoning:
- “Title” in Article 65 includes title perfected by adverse possession.
- Denying the sword would leave the perfected possessor remediless against dispossession.
- This position has been consistently reaffirmed in post-2019 judgments (e.g., 2024 Supreme Court reiterations confirming plaintiffs can seek declaration based on adverse possession).
Critical Analysis & Judicial Evolution
The doctrine is context-dependent, not purely one or the other.
As a shield → Protects long-term, good-faith possessors (e.g., farmers or tenants in rural/urban areas) and promotes stability.
As a sword → Can reward intentional trespassers, raising concerns of “premium on dishonesty” (criticized in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009, and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, 2011).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly called it “harsh” and “anarchic,” especially against government land or vulnerable owners, urging reform. However, the 22nd Law Commission of India in its 280th Report (May 2023) recommended retaining the law without changes, finding no justification for abolition or extension of limitation periods. It noted its social utility for the poor/marginalized, though ex-officio members dissented, arguing it enables land mafia.
Practical Examples in India
- Urban encroachments — Long-term squatters in cities like Mumbai/Delhi have used it to formalize rights when owners fail to act.
- Rural disputes — Farmers cultivating abandoned land for decades often succeed (e.g., illustrative cases where state land encroached for over 12 years led to possessory claims).
Note: The cited State of Rajasthan v. Rai Bahadur (AIR 1973 Raj 75) appears to involve encroachments on state land, but the doctrine applies cautiously to government property (30-year period, and courts are stricter).
Conclusion
Adverse possession in India is both a shield and a sword — a position firmly established since Ravinder Kaur Grewa (2019) and unchanged as of 2026. It acts as a shield to defend perfected possession and a sword to assert rights proactively, balancing factual possession against formal title.
Yet, its application remains controversial: protective for diligent occupants, but potentially unjust to absentee owners. With improving land records and digital tracking, some argue it has outlived its utility—but until legislative change (which the Law Commission opposes), it endures as a powerful, double-edged tool enforcing practical justice over mere inaction.
