NEW DELHI: 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 Kumari directed the Haryana government to compensate landowners whose 7 Kanals of land in Fatehabad district had been used for an irrigation distributary since 1960 without being lawfully acquired or paid for.What was the case?The dispute concerned 7 Kanals of agricultural land in Fatehabad district owned by the plaintiff and others. The Banmandori distributary — an irrigation channel — had been passing through this land since 1960. What began as an earthen channel was later cemented by the state government without formally acquiring the land or paying any compensation to the owners, as per a report by LiveLaw.The landowners approached the civil court seeking possession of their land.The State argued that since the distributary had been in existence for decades without any objection from the landowners, it had become the owner through adverse possession — a legal principle that allows a person in long, uninterrupted possession to claim ownership. The State also argued that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than 44 years after the distributary was first constructed.Both the trial court and the first appellate court ruled against the landowners, holding that the suit was time-barred and that the State had acquired ownership through adverse possession. The landowners then approached the high court.What did the court say?Justice Ramesh Kumari rejected the State’s argument, holding that a government cannot behave like a trespasser and then claim ownership over citizens’ property.Relying on a series of Supreme Court judgments, the court held that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution cannot be taken away except by authority of law.Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana vs. Amin Lal, the bench noted that “the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.”The court added that the State cannot “become a squatter over the lawful possessory and ownership rights of its citizens” and that if it requires private land for a public purpose, it must acquire it in accordance with law and pay fair compensation.The court set aside the orders of both lower courts and held that no limitation period applies to a suit for possession based on title when the land is in illegal possession of the State.However, since the distributary has been serving the irrigation needs of a large number of farmers since 1960 and its removal is not practical, the court did not order the land to be returned. Instead, it directed the Haryana government to pay compensation at fair market price.