Introduction:

In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sukhan Devi (Deceased) through LRs, RSA No. 372 of 2016, decided on 09 July 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the rights of individuals in adverse possession, particularly in the context of inheritance. The case revolved around the widow of a man who had occupied government land since 1963 and who, after his death, claimed title by adverse possession. The Hon’ble Justice Vivek Singh Thakur upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, affirming that the widow, Sukhan Devi, had a rightful claim to have her name recorded in the revenue records based on the uninterrupted and long-standing possession of the land by her deceased husband. The Court ruled that adverse possession, once matured into ownership, becomes heritable, and thus the plaintiff had lawfully inherited her husband’s title over the encroached land.

Arguments:

The plaintiff, Sukhan Devi, filed a civil suit asserting that her husband had taken possession of a piece of government land in Bilaspur District, Himachal Pradesh on 13 January 1963. She cited revenue entries (jamabandi of 1963-64) as proof of his uninterrupted, peaceful, and open possession for over 30 years, arguing that this matured into a rightful title by adverse possession. The plaintiff stated that due to illiteracy and lack of awareness, the couple had never updated the revenue records to reflect the matured ownership. It was only in 2009, when the plaintiff approached the revenue office to procure documents for availing a loan, that she discovered that the land was still recorded in the name of the State. The situation escalated when the revenue agency attempted to forcibly evict her. Consequently, she approached the Civil Court seeking a declaration that she was the rightful owner by way of adverse possession and a direction to have her name entered in the revenue records in place of her deceased husband.

The State of Himachal Pradesh, through its Additional Advocate General, challenged the plaintiff’s claim on two major grounds. First, the State argued that the land in question belonged to the government, and the possession by the plaintiff and her husband was unauthorized. Thus, no title could be claimed under such circumstances. The State contended that possession alone, even if prolonged, could not transform into ownership unless supported by a lawful claim. It further alleged that the Trial Court had wrongly interpreted the entries in the revenue records, which were not conclusive proof of ownership.

Secondly, the State relied on Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act to contend that civil courts were barred from making determinations regarding revenue entries. The State submitted that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities and that civil courts could not entertain a suit for declaration and correction of entries in the jamabandi.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, speaking for the High Court, examined the facts and the legal arguments presented. He first scrutinized the revenue records and acknowledged that the entries unequivocally demonstrated that the plaintiff’s husband had been in continuous, open, and uninterrupted possession of the land since 1963. These records further reflected that the unauthorized occupation was within the knowledge of the State and the revenue authorities for more than three decades. Despite such knowledge, the State had never initiated eviction or any other legal action against the husband of the plaintiff during his lifetime. The Court noted that this inaction effectively satisfied the essential criteria for establishing adverse possession.

The Court further held that the doctrine of adverse possession is well-recognized under Indian jurisprudence and that title obtained through adverse possession is legally heritable. In this case, since the plaintiff’s husband had fulfilled all conditions for acquiring title by adverse possession, and the possession had matured into ownership prior to his death, his widow rightfully inherited the title. Justice Thakur emphasized that the revenue entries confirming the uninterrupted occupation for over 30 years were sufficient to prove adverse possession.

Addressing the State’s reliance on Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the Court noted that the bar on civil court jurisdiction is not absolute. The opening words of Section 171 — “Except as otherwise provided by this Act” — leave room for exceptions. The Court held that the suit in question fell within such an exception. In particular, when the issue pertains to declaratory relief and correction of title based on adverse possession, civil courts do have the jurisdiction to adjudicate. Justice Thakur also referenced earlier judgments that clarified the scope of Section 171 and reinforced the principle that statutory bars on jurisdiction must be construed narrowly.

Justice Thakur emphasized the equitable considerations involved in the case. The plaintiff, an illiterate widow, had no reason to be aware of the technical requirements for changing the revenue records or asserting her title earlier. Her belated action was prompted by necessity, when she attempted to avail a loan. The Court further noted the conduct of the State, which had acquiesced in the occupation of the land for decades and had not made any effort to recover possession or initiate proceedings against the plaintiff or her husband.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had rightly interpreted the revenue records and legal principles, and the First Appellate Court had not committed any error in upholding the decree. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed. The Court concluded that the doctrine of adverse possession had been satisfied and that the title had lawfully passed from the husband to the widow.