In a significant ruling reaffirming property rights, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot claim ownership over a citizen's land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession, observing that such a plea is incompatible with the role of a welfare State.

Justice Ramesh Kumar passed the judgment while directing the Haryana Government to compensate landowners whose 7 kanals of agricultural land in Fatehabad district had been occupied and used for an irrigation distributary since 1960 without lawful acquisition or payment of compensation.

The dispute concerned 7 kanals of land owned by private individuals in Fatehabad district, Haryana. The Banmandori distributary, an irrigation channel, had been passing through the land since 1960. What initially existed as an earthen water channel was later converted into a cemented distributary by the State authorities.

Despite using the land for more than six decades, the government neither acquired the property under any law nor paid compensation to the landowners.

When the owners approached the courts seeking possession and relief, the State argued that it had acquired title over the land through adverse possession. It further contended that the suit was barred by limitation since it had been filed more than 44 years after the distributary was constructed.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the State's arguments and dismissed the landowners' claim.

Setting aside the judgments of the lower courts, Justice Ramesh Kumar held that the government cannot behave like a trespasser and then seek ownership of private property through adverse possession.

Relying on several Supreme Court decisions, including State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, the Court emphasized that the right to property protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution can be taken away only through authority of law.

The Court observed that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over citizens' land by invoking adverse possession and cannot become a "squatter" over the lawful ownership rights of its citizens.

According to the Court, whenever private land is required for a public purpose, the government must acquire it through a lawful process and pay fair compensation to the owners.

While ruling in favour of the landowners, the Court noted that the distributary has been serving irrigation needs of numerous farmers since 1960 and its removal would not be practical or in public interest.

Therefore, instead of directing restoration of possession, the Court ordered the Haryana Government to compensate the landowners at the prevailing fair market value of the land.

The judgment is expected to have significant implications for disputes involving government occupation of private land without formal acquisition and reinforces constitutional protections against unlawful deprivation of property.