SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No. 732 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate for the petitioners, through video conferencing. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner filed a declaratory suit under Section 229B of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on the ground of adverse possession. The said suit was dismissed by learned trial Court. Petitioner filed First Appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Kumaon, Nainital. Petitioner thereafter filed Second Appeal, which too has been dismissed by Board of Revenue. 4. All the three Courts have held that possession of the petitioner was permissive. There is nothing on record to show that the possession of the petitioner was hostile to the title of the true owner. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and others, reported in AIR 2012 SC 559 has held as under:- “35. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. It is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. Though we got this law of adverse possession from the British, it is important to note that these days the English courts are taking a very negative view towards the law of adverse possession. The English law was amended and changed substantially to reflect these changes, particularly in light of the view that property is a human right adopted by the European Commission. This Court in Revamma (AIR 2007 SC 1753) (supra) observed that to understand the true nature of adverse possession, Fairweather v. St. Marylebone Property Co. [1962] 2 WLR 1020: can be considered where the House of Lords referring to Taylor v. Twinberrow [(1930) 2 KB 16, termed adverse possession as a negative and consequential right effected only because somebody else's positive right to access the court is barred by operation of law. As against the rights of the paper- owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. 36. The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. Human rights have already been considered in the realm of individual rights such as the right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. But now human rights are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension. Therefore, even the claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context. 37. The changing attitude of the English courts is quite visible from the judgment of Beaulane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer (2005) 3 WLR 554 . The Court here tried to read the human rights position in the context of adverse possession. But what is commendable is that the dimensions of human rights have widened so much that now property dispute issues are also being raised within the contours of human rights. With the expanding jurisprudence of the European Courts of Human Rights, the Court has taken an unkind view to the concept of adverse possession” 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsinni (dead) by LRs. V. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375, in para 5 of the judgment has observed as follows:- “… The burden undoubtedly lies on them to plead and prove that they remained in possession in their own right adverse to the respondents. … The party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession must be ‘nec vi, nec clam, nec precario’ i.e., peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner.” 7. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 21.03.2025 Navin