The Court tried to read the Human RIGHTS position in the context of adverse possession , which is commendable.
In Karnataka State Financial Corporation Versus N. Narasimahaiah and OTHERS [AIR 2008 SC 1797 : (2008) 4 SCR 853 : (2008) 5 SCC 176 : JT 2008 (4) SC 183 : (2008) 4 SCALE 473] Supreme court Held :
Right of property, although no longer a FUNDAMENTAL right, is still a constitutional right. It is also human right. In absence of any provision either expressly or by necessary implication, depriving a person therefrom, the court shall not construe a provision leaning in favour of such deprivation.
Recently, this Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. v. Revamma and Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 59] dealing with adverse possession opined :
“Human RIGHTS have been historically considered in the realm of individual RIGHTS such as, right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc. but now human RIGHTS are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension. Therefore, even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context. The activist approach of the English Courts is quite visible from the Judgment of Beaulane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer [2005 (3) WLR 554 : 2005 EWHC 817 (Ch.)] and JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom  ECHR 921 :  49 ERG 90,  ECHR 921]. The court herein tried to read the Human RIGHTS position in the context of adverse possession. But what is commendable is that the dimension of human RIGHTS has widened so much that now property dispute issues are also being raised within the contours of human RIGHTS.”