Chhattisgarh HC dismissed a claim for 10.60 acres of land, ruling that long-term occupation without proof does not grant legal ownership

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 248 | 2026:CGHC:16602-DB

April 10, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a first appeal filed by four individuals seeking ownership of over 10 acres of land in the Bemetara district through the doctrine of adverse possession. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, upheld a previous trial court decision, ruling that the appellants failed to meet the rigorous legal standards required to claim land they do not officially own.

The dispute centered on a 10.60-acre plot in Village Rano, which the plaintiffs Dilip Das, Smt. Dashreet Das, Santu, and Bishal claimed to have cultivated for 33 years. They argued that because the land was left vacant since 1990 by the original owner, Basant Kumari Gupta, their long-term occupancy had “perfected” their title. The legal battle intensified after Gupta sold the property to new owners in December 2022, prompting the plaintiffs to file a suit to declare those sale deeds null and void.

However, the Court found the plaintiffs’ evidence to be significantly lacking. Documentary records, including the “kishtbandi khatauni” (landholding register) from 2012 to 2023, consistently listed the defendants as the rightful title and possession holders. Furthermore, oral testimonies from the plaintiffs were described as contradictory; one appellant admitted during cross-examination that he was unsure exactly whose land he was occupying and could not define its boundaries.

In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that adverse possession is not merely about long-term trespassing. Citing landmark Supreme Court precedents like the Karnataka Board of Waqf and the Ram Janmabhumi Temple cases, the bench noted that a claimant must prove their possession was “adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent” to the knowledge of the true owner. The Court observed that the plaintiffs failed to provide a specific start date for their possession or demonstrate the “hostile” intent required to override a legal title.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that the trial court was justified in its original dismissal, concluding that the appellants had not established the necessary legal ingredients to claim the land. With the appeal dismissed, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Case Reference : First Appeal No. 56 of 2025: Dilip Das and Others vs. Basant Kumari Gupta and Others; Counsels: Mr. P.R. Patankar for Appellants, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava for Respondents No. 1 to 4, and Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. for Respondent No. 5/State.