In Brief
A landowner in Himachal Pradesh sued to recover possession of her encroached land and demolish structures erected on it. The trial court decreed recovery, but the first appellate court modified the decree to award compensation instead, citing estoppel and acquiescence. The High Court reversed this and restored recovery of possession. The appellants (defendant's heirs) challenged this, claiming the owner's delay and the defendant's bona fide construction investment justified compensation. The Supreme Court upheld recovery of possession, holding that where an owner establishes title to land within the limitation period, the doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence cannot bar recovery, especially when the encroacher constructed despite objections and lacked valid title or genuine belief of ownership.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.