<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale dismissed an appeal of the Haryana government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order restoring the possession of land to a private party in which the state's Public Works Department (PWD) has staked its claim.</p>.'Farmers - a distressed lot; allow them to survive,' Supreme Court rejects Karnataka's plea against enhanced compensation for acquiring land.<p>"We find no merit in the appellants' contentions. The high court's judgement is based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence. The plaintiffs (private party) have established their ownership of the suit property, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens," it said.</p>.<p>The dispute pertains to land in Bahadurgarh at Haryana located on the National Highway, which connects Delhi and Bahadurgarh.</p>.<p>The bench relied on the entries of the revenue records which established the ownership of the land in favour of the private party.</p>.<p>"Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government. Therefore, the appellants' (state government) plea of adverse possession is untenable in law," the bench said.</p>.<p>The top court said the revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.</p>.<p>"While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence," it said.</p>.<p>Haryana and its PWD had earlier claimed that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in question for decades and they had become owners by way of adverse possession.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale dismissed an appeal of the Haryana government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order restoring the possession of land to a private party in which the state's Public Works Department (PWD) has staked its claim.</p>.'Farmers - a distressed lot; allow them to survive,' Supreme Court rejects Karnataka's plea against enhanced compensation for acquiring land.<p>"We find no merit in the appellants' contentions. The high court's judgement is based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence. The plaintiffs (private party) have established their ownership of the suit property, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens," it said.</p>.<p>The dispute pertains to land in Bahadurgarh at Haryana located on the National Highway, which connects Delhi and Bahadurgarh.</p>.<p>The bench relied on the entries of the revenue records which established the ownership of the land in favour of the private party.</p>.<p>"Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government. Therefore, the appellants' (state government) plea of adverse possession is untenable in law," the bench said.</p>.<p>The top court said the revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.</p>.<p>"While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence," it said.</p>.<p>Haryana and its PWD had earlier claimed that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in question for decades and they had become owners by way of adverse possession.</p>