No One Acquires Title To Property Through Gratuitous Occupation, Even If Possession Continues For Decades: J&K High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that the protection can only be granted or extended to a person who has a valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.

“Therefore, a person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable, would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence”, he emphasised.

These observations came in a matter which arose when M/S M. R. Industries, a small-scale industrial unit, approached the High Court challenging an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Srinagar. In the initial proceedings, the plaintiff (M/S M. R. Industries) sought a temporary injunction against the respondents, preventing them from interfering with its occupation of Plot No. 63-C at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar.

The appellant argued that it was initially granted a lease for two kanals of land through a lease deed. Subsequently, it claimed to have been tacitly permitted to use an adjacent plot for additional activities, asserting that it paid ground rent for the same. The appellant repeatedly sought formal allotment of the adjacent plot, which the respondents denied, stating that the plot was migrant property and alleging that the appellant had encroached upon it.

The Additional District Judge dismissed the appellant's application for a temporary injunction, citing ongoing litigation concerning the property in the High Court, where a stay order had been issued. The appellant, dissatisfied with this outcome, approached the High Court, arguing that it was in “settled possession” of the additional plot and entitled to protection from eviction without due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

Justice Sanjay Dhar undertook a detailed examination of the case, beginning with the trial court's failure to grant an injunction despite the absence of a written statement from the defendants. The Court clarified that the lack of a written response did not automatically validate the appellant's claims and that the trial court was duty-bound to analyze the averments and evidence to determine whether a prima facie case existed.

“.. it is correct that defendants/respondents have not filed any written statement to the suit filed by the appellant, but then it does not absolve the trial Court from analyzing from the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, as to whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. In the absence of written statement it cannot be assumed that the averments made in the plaint are admitted by the defendants”, the court remarked.

Turning to the central issue as to whether the appellant's occupation of adjacent plot allegedly permitted tacitly by the respondents, created a right to legal protection, Justice Dhar quoted referenced Supreme Court's judgment in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira to emphasise that If a person has been allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously, he does not acquire any title over the property, and the Courts would not be justified in protecting the possession of any person who was allowed to occupy the premises for some time gratuitously.

The Court noted that the appellant admitted it had no formal allotment for this plot and that the land belonged to a migrant. The appellant's reliance on “tacit permission” to justify its occupation was insufficient to establish any legal right, the court said.

Maintaining that a person occupying premises gratuitously, without formal authorization, cannot claim rights, even with prolonged possession Justice Dhar underscored that a person holding premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable would not acquire any right or interest in the property, and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that it was entitled to an injunction because it was in settled possession of the plot. It held that the appellant's occupation, being unauthorized, did not warrant protection from eviction.

Concluding the case, Justice Dhar upheld the trial court's dismissal of the temporary injunction application and ruled that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate any legal right to remain in possession of this plot. It thus dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: M/S M. R. INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF J&K & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 354

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment