NEW DELHI: This Supreme Court move will bring cheers to those who have lost their house

or land to
squatters. On Tuesday, the court said it wanted a change in the law that gives ownership rights to the one
who has usurped a property by squatting by taking advantage of the fact that the owners were have had
little time to inquire about their property. 

Terming the ousting of real owners from their property by squatters as a serious human rights violation, a
Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and H S Bedi has requested the Centre to take a fresh look
and suitably amend the land laws that recognise "adverse possession" as a means to acquire title over a
property by ousting the real owners. 

The apex court was at loss to understand how the law could place a premium on dishonesty by
legitimising possession of a trespasser and compelling the real owner to lose his title simply because the
owner has not taken back his house or land within a stipulated time. 

"There is an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession. We recommend the
Union of India to seriously consider and make suitable changes in the law of adverse possession,” said
the Bench rushing a copy of its judgment to the law ministry and legislative department for appropriate
steps in accordance with law. 

The case that prompted the court to do so related to a real owner losing out his title to a squatter. The
Bench — despite the existing law — restored the property to the real owner, saying the trespasser had
miserably failed to establish his title over it and said it was a pity that law recognised "adverse
possession" as a means to take over property from a non-alert owner. 

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Bhandari said: "The law of adverse possession which ousts
an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate...The
law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owners and a windfall for a dishonest person who had
illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner." 

The concern of the court was that law, which is meant to do justice, could not be seen to benefit a person
"who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of the law." 

Though right to property has been deleted from the list of fundamental rights and has been reduced to the
status of a mere legal right, the apex court termed it as an important human right. 

"The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional right or statutory right but also a
human right," the Bench said, while observing that claim of adverse possession had to be dealt with
keeping in mind this important right.