Adverse Possession - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

The Supreme Court affirmed the landowner's preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. It held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme before any acquisition under Section 14 can be initiated. The 2018 Amendment to the Act did not dilute this mandatory requirement, and acquisition proceedings commenced without such notice were declared illegal. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a plot of land in Bandra, Mumbai, owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church Trust). A portion of this land had been encroached by hutments since the 1930s and was declared a slum area in 1978. The slum dwellers formed the Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Soci...

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...

Supreme Court Verdict on Ownership and Illegal Possession:Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Appeal in the Land Dispute Case

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, ruling that the appellant unlawfully occupied land in Survey No. 9 despite holding a deed for Survey No. 10. The Court emphasized that land grabbing requires illegal possession with intent, distinct from mere trespass, and affirmed the Special Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes summarily. The appellant’s claim of adverse possession failed due to lack of hostile animus and proof of long-standing occupation. The judgment reinforced the strict interpretation of land grabbing under the Act, aligning with precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002). Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over 252 square yards of land in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar V...