Report No. 280 of the Law Commission of India on “The Law on Adverse Possession.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhoi Khengarbhai Horijan and Others [(2009) 16 SCC 517] and State of Haryona v. Mukesh Kumar and Others [(2011) 10 SCC 404], observed that there is a need to have a fresh look at the law of adverse possession and recommended that the Union of India seriously consider the issue and make suitable changes, wherever necessary. Pursuant to this, a reference was made to the Law Commission by the Ministry of Law & Justice vide letter dated lgth December, 2008, thereby requesting the Commission to examine and undertake a study in the matter and furnish a report on the same.
The concept of adverse possession is very much prevalent in
almost all foreign jurisdictions, with the exception of the Canadian
province of Alberta, where the social and geographical conditions are
altogether different from India.
In Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur ( 2019) 8 SCC 729, a three-judge Bench of the
the supreme court reaffirmed the long-standing right of adverse
possession, meaning thereby that even a suit can be filed to claim the title
on the basis of adverse possession. Some decisions of the Supreme
Court to the contrary was overruled by this judgment.
I REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION
2 INTRODUCTION
3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ADVERSE POSSESSION
4. PREVIOUS REPORTS OF THE LAW COMMISSION
5. THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT SUGGESTING CHANGE IN THE LAW OF ADVERSE POSSESSION
6. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Scope of the Limitation Act, 1963 26
7. BROAD ASPECTS RELATING TO ADVERSE POSSESSION
8. CHANGES MADE IN THE LAW RELATING TO ADVERSE POSSESSION
9. ADVERSE POSSESSION VIS.A.VIS MORALITY
10. THE LIMITATION ACT, T963 IN RESPECT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: WHETHER ANY AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY?
Regarding the Questions posed by the Law Commission in the Consultation Paper
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEXURE – I