Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Government’s Possession in Land Dispute Over Veterinary Hospital
The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of the State of Punjab in a long-standing land dispute concerning the construction and possession of a veterinary hospital in Samana, District Patiala. The case, The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Bhagwantpal Singh (Deceased) Through LRs, focused on whether the land, allegedly donated in 1958, belonged to the state government or remained under the ownership of the plaintiff’s legal heirs.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose over a piece of land measuring 2176.6 square yards in Samana, Patiala. The appellant-State of Punjab claimed that the land was donated by Shri Inder Singh in 1958 for the construction of a veterinary hospital. The hospital was built and had been functional since 1959. However, decades later, in 2001, the plaintiff, Bhagwantpal Singh (since deceased), filed a suit for possession, alleging illegal occupation of the land by the state.
The case went through multiple legal proceedings, with the Trial Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court reversing the decision in favor of the State, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court subsequently restoring the Trial Court’s verdict. This led the State of Punjab to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the land in dispute was legally donated to the state.
- Whether the suit for possession was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether adverse possession could be claimed by the State.
- Whether revenue records (Jama Bandis) alone could determine ownership.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The State of Punjab contended:
- The land was voluntarily donated by Shri Inder Singh in 1958 for public welfare.
- The Veterinary Hospital was constructed in 1959 with funds from the State Government.
- Shri Inder Singh never objected to the use of the land for over four decades.
- The plaintiff’s suit, filed in 2001, was barred by limitation as possession had been continuous since 1958.
- The burden of proof of ownership lay with the plaintiff under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Respondent’s Arguments
The legal heirs of Bhagwantpal Singh countered with the following claims:
- There was no documentary proof of the donation.
- The State’s claim of ownership through adverse possession was not legally tenable.
- The veterinary hospital was an illegal encroachment, and the State was liable to vacate the land.
- The land remained in their name in the revenue records, proving their ownership.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and made several key findings:
1. Validity of the Alleged Donation
The Court found that multiple documents, including resolutions from 1958-59, indicated that the land had been donated for public welfare. It ruled that the continued possession and public utility of the hospital corroborated this claim.
2. Limitation Period for Filing Suit
Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, a suit for possession must be filed within 12 years of adverse possession. The Court noted that even if the plaintiff became aware of the hospital’s existence in 1981, filing the suit in 2001 was well beyond the limitation period.
3. Adverse Possession by the State
The Court clarified that while adverse possession is typically used as a defense, the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land for over 40 years supported the State’s claim.
4. Revenue Records and Ownership
The Court held that mere entries in the revenue records (Jama Bandis) do not confer ownership if contrary evidence establishes a long-standing transfer.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The suit for possession was barred by limitation and should not have been entertained.
- The High Court’s ruling was set aside, and the First Appellate Court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s suit was restored.
- The Veterinary Hospital would continue to operate on the disputed land.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling clarifies important aspects of land donation for public purposes and the application of the Limitation Act in property disputes. It reinforces that claims against long-standing government infrastructure cannot be entertained after decades of non-objection.
Petitioner Name: The State of Punjab & Ors..Respondent Name: Bhagwantpal Singh (Deceased) Through LRs.Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K.V. Viswanathan.Place Of Incident: Samana, Patiala, Punjab.Judgment Date: 10-07-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: the-state-of-punjab-vs-bhagwantpal-singh-(d-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-07-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by K.V. Viswanathan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
