In a decisive ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that occupying land without formal authorization or agreement does not create any legal entitlement to ownership or protection from eviction.
The court was hearing a case involving an industrial unit that claimed rights over a plot of land it had occupied for two years without a lease or rental agreement. Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that such gratuitous occupation, even if prolonged, does not confer any legal rights or interest in the property.
Citing a 2012 Supreme Court judgment, the court clarified, “A person allowed to stay on premises gratuitously does not acquire any title to the property. Courts cannot protect possession in such cases unless supported by a valid rent, lease, or license agreement.”
The industrial unit, which had initially leased a two-kanal plot, argued that it had been implicitly permitted to use an adjacent plot for additional operations and claimed to have paid ground rent for it. However, the State authorities disputed this, asserting the land belonged to a third party and accusing the unit of encroachment.
When the matter escalated to a civil court, the industrial unit sought an interim injunction to restrain authorities from interfering with its occupation. This request was denied due to pending litigation before the High Court. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the industrial unit’s plea, stating there was no prima facie case to justify an injunction.
Justice Dhar emphasized that courts cannot extend protection to unauthorized occupiers, even those in prolonged possession, if no formal agreement or legal right supports their claim. The court dismissed the industrial unit’s argument that its “settled possession” entitled it to an injunction, affirming that unauthorized occupancy does not warrant such protections.
The judgment reinforces the principle that ownership and rights over land must stem from clear legal agreements, not from informal arrangements or prolonged unauthorized use.
