Does Long Possession of Public Land Without Title Create a Right to Injunction?

One of the most frequently litigated questions in Indian property law is whether long, continuous possession of land without legal title, particularly public land, can confer a right to injunction against the true owner, namely the State or its instrumentalities. This issue commonly arises in cases involving encroachments on government land, railway land, municipal land, or land belonging to public departments, where individuals remain in occupation for decades and later seek protection from eviction through civil courts.

Indian courts have consistently been called upon to balance two competing considerations:

• The equitable principle that possession deserves protection against arbitrary dispossession, and
• The constitutional and statutory duty of the State is to protect public property from illegal occupation.

The recent 2026 decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Maharaj Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh squarely addresses this conflict and reiterates a settled principle: mere long possession of public land, without lawful title or authority, does not create a right to injunction.

Concept of Injunction in Property Disputes

An injunction is an equitable relief governed primarily by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sections 36 to 42 of the Act regulate temporary and perpetual injunctions.

A plaintiff seeking an injunction must ordinarily establish:

• A prima facie legal right,
• Lawful possession, and
• A threat of illegal or unauthorised interference.

Importantly, an injunction is not a tool to protect illegality. Courts have repeatedly held that equity follows the law and does not assist a person who seeks to perpetuate an unlawful act.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Maharaj Singh Yadav, instituted a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of a piece of land situated at Ganeshganj Marg, Lohangipur, District Vidisha. The suit property was admittedly public land located near the residential quarters of the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department.

The petitioner had been employed as a Timekeeper in the Public Health Engineering Department, Vidisha Sub-Division, since 1982. At the time of joining service, he allegedly did not have a residential house. According to the petitioner, with the consent of departmental officers, he constructed three tin-shed rooms measuring approximately 8 feet by 8 feet each at his own expense on vacant land near the departmental quarters.

The petitioner further claimed that an electricity connection was installed in his name in the disputed premises, which he described as his “house”. Over the years, he continued to occupy the structure and reside there with his family.

On 30 May 2020, the petitioner retired from government service. Subsequently, he vacated the official departmental quarters on 19 June 2020 after handing over possession and receiving a No Dues Certificate from the department. However, he continued to occupy the tin-shed structure erected on the public land even after retirement.

When the State authorities sought to remove him from the land, the petitioner approached the civil court seeking injunctive relief, contending that his long possession since 1982 entitled him to protection, even if he lacked legal title.

Procedural History

Trial Court Proceedings:

The petitioner filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction along with an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the State from interfering with his possession. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the petitioner had no legal right or title over the public land and was an unauthorised occupant.

First Appellate Court:

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 36/2025 before the II Additional District Judge, Vidisha. The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s order dated 14 October 2025, concurring that no injunction could be granted to protect illegal occupation of public property.

High Court under Article 227:

The petitioner then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the concurrent findings of both courts below.

Reasoning of the High Court

Justice Hirdesh, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, noted that the petitioner admittedly lacked legal title or right over the disputed land, which was public property.

The Court categorically held that:

• A person without legal possession is an unauthorised occupant or trespasser.
• A trespasser has no right to seek a temporary injunction in respect of such property.
• Long possession, even if spanning decades, does not confer any enforceable legal right against the State.

The Court further observed that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the facts and applied settled law. There was no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in their orders.

Since Article 227 does not permit the High Court to act as a second appellate court, no interference was warranted.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition, holding that:

• The rejection of the application for temporary injunction by the Trial Court was legally sound.
• The affirmation of that order by the First Appellate Court was justified.
• The petitioner was not entitled to any equitable or legal protection for illegal occupation of public land.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Conclusion

Maharaj Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh is a clear and authoritative restatement of the principle that long possession without title does not create a right to injunction, especially when the property belongs to the State. The High Court’s refusal to interfere under Article 227 ensures that equitable remedies are not misused to legitimise encroachments on public land.

The decision aligns with constitutional principles, property law jurisprudence, and the broader public interest in safeguarding government land for lawful and planned use.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams