The Jammu and Kashmir High Court declared that occupying land without formal approval does not confer ownership rights. In M/S M. R. Industries v. State of J&K, the court dismissed the industrial unit’s claims over adjacent land, emphasizing that only individuals with valid agreements are entitled to legal protection for possession, regardless of duration.
Kashmir: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has firmly ruled that a person occupying land gratuitously cannot claim ownership or protection over the property, regardless of the duration of their possession. This decision was made in the case of M/S M. R. Industries v. State of J&K and Ors, where the court dismissed an appeal for interim relief by an industrial unit claiming rights over land it occupied without formal authorization.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while delivering the judgment, referred to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, which clearly states:
“If a person has been allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously, he does not acquire any title over the property, and the Courts would not be justified in protecting the possession of any person who was allowed to occupy the premises for some time gratuitously.”
The High Court reiterated that only individuals with valid, formal agreements such as a rent, lease, or license agreement are entitled to legal protection for their possession.
The dispute arose when an industrial unit, which initially held a lease for two kanals of land, was also informally allowed to use an adjacent plot. The unit claimed it had paid ground rent for the additional plot and sought its formal allotment. However, the State authorities denied the request, asserting that the land belonged to a third party.
Read Also: Delhi HC Directs RBI to Expedite Beneficiary Name Verification for RTGS and NEFT
Accused of encroaching on the property, the industrial unit filed a suit to restrain the State from interfering with its occupation and sought interim relief. Both the civil court and the High Court dismissed these requests.
The High Court found no prima facie case in favor of the industrial unit, emphasizing:
- Unauthorized Occupation: The unit’s occupation of the adjacent land was unauthorized, and no legal right or interest was created in its favor.
- No Grounds for Injunction: The court clarified that prolonged possession does not justify protection from eviction in the absence of formal authorization.
- Property Belongs to a Third Party: The adjacent land belonged to a migrant, and the plaintiff had no legal claim over it.
Justice Dhar also pointed out that
“a person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable would not acquire any right or interest in the property, and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.”
This judgment underscores a critical legal principle: merely occupying property without a formal agreement does not confer ownership or rights. It serves as a strong reminder for individuals and entities to ensure proper authorization when using property to avoid legal disputes.
The court’s decision also reinforces the importance of adhering to legal frameworks and respecting rightful ownership, sending a clear message that encroachment and unauthorized occupation will not be tolerated.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE