In Brief
Raj Kishore Panda claimed title to agricultural land through adverse possession, alleging continuous possession from 1944. The State contested the claim, arguing the land belonged to the government and the plaintiff never acquired legal title. Both the trial court and appellate court rejected the adverse possession claim. The Supreme Court held that even if the plaintiff possessed the land since 1944, his payment of fine in an Encroachment Case (1993) constituted explicit recognition of the State's title, destroying the hostile intent required for adverse possession. The Court affirmed that adverse possession requires the possessor to deny the true owner's title throughout the entire period, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.