Adverse possession (GS Paper 2, Governance)
Why in news?
- Recently, the 22nd Law Commission in its recent report said there is no justification for introducing any change in the law relating to adverse possession.
Details:
- The Law Commission, headed by former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Ritu Raj Awasthi and comprising retired Kerala High Court judge KT Sankaran, said in its 280th report that there is no reason for increasing the period of limitation.
- However, two of its ex officio members filed a dissent note stating that the law does not stand judicial scrutiny and “promotes false claims under the colour of adverse possession”.
What is adverse possession?
- The concept of adverse possession stems from the idea that land must not be left vacant but instead, be put to judicious use. Essentially, adverse possession refers to the hostile possession of property, which must be continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful.
- The rationale behind this comes from considerations that the “title to land should not long be in doubt”, “society will benefit from someone making use of land the owner leaves idle,” and “persons who come to regard the occupant as owner may be protected.”
- The maxim that the law does not help those who sleep over their rights is invoked in support of adverse possession. The original title holder who neglected to enforce his rights over the land cannot be permitted to re-enter the land after a long passage of time.
Concept:
- While the concept originally dates back to 2000 BC, finding its roots in the Hammurabi Code, the historical basis of “title by adverse possession” is the development of the statutes of limitation on actions for recovery of land in England. The first such statute was the Statute of Westminster, 1275.
- However, it was the Property Limitation Act, 1874, that set the period of limitation at twelve years from when the cause of action first arose, which laid the groundwork for the limitations model inherited by colonial India.
- The first attempt to bring the law of limitation to domestic shores was the “Act XIV of 1859”, which regulated the limitation of civil suits in British India. After the passage of the Limitation Act in 1963, the law on adverse possession underwent significant changes.
What provisions did the Limitation Act, 1963 bring with it?
- The 1963 Act fortified the position of the true owner of the land, as he now had to merely prove his title, while the burden of proof of adverse possession shifted to the person claiming it.
- Under the Limitation Act, 1963, any person in possession of private land for over 12 years or government land for over 30 years can become the owner of that property, as laid down in Articles 64, 65, 111, or 112 of the 1963 Act, relating to suits for possession of immovable property.
- According to Article 65 of Schedule I of the 1963 Act, a person in adverse possession of immovable property acquires title to that property. However, the possession must be open, continuous, and “in defiance of the title of the real owner for twelve years.” Similarly, Article 64 governs suits for possession based on previous possession and not on title.
- Meanwhile, Article 112, which applies to government property, mandates a requirement of 30 years for granting a title by adverse position.
- Further, Article 111 says that the limitation period for the State will be 30 years from the date of dispossession for land belonging to a private person where any public street or road or any part of it has been dispossessed and no suit has been moved for its possession “by or on behalf of any local authority”.
What are the main ingredients of adverse possession?
- In the 2004 Apex Court ruling in Karnataka Board of Wakf v Government of India, the court dealt with the ingredients of adverse possession.
- According to the observations made by former SC judge S. Rajendra Babu in the case, “A person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.”
- For the adverse possession to be “open,” or without any attempt at concealment, it doesn’t need to be brought to the specific knowledge of the owner. However, such a requirement may be insisted on where an ouster of title is pleaded.
- Further, the mandate for such possession to be “undisturbed” requires a “consistent course of conduct, which means that it cannot be shown by a “stray or sporadic act of possession.” In the 1981 ruling in Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi, the SC delineated the requirements of openness and continuity.
- However, in a series of decisions, the SC recommended that the government seriously consider the issue of “adverse possession” and make suitable changes.
Why did the SC suggest changes to the law on adverse possession?
- A two-judge SC bench, in its 2008 ruling in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others, while dealing with Article 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, observed that the law of adverse possession “ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation” and is “irrational, illogical, and wholly disproportionate”.
- Emphasising the “urgent need” for “a fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession”, the court recommended the government “to seriously consider and make suitable changes in the law of adverse possession”.
- Following this, on December 19, 2008, a reference was made to the Law Commission by the Ministry of Law and Justice, requesting it to examine the matter and furnish its report on the same.
- Owing to the importance of the subject, coupled with the fact that the reference had been pending since 2008, the present Law Commission found it “expedient to deliberate afresh over the subject.”
- While the Commission’s opinion was that the law on adverse possession should stay the same, two of its ex officio members, filed a dissent note saying that the law promotes false claims.
What did the dissent note say?
- Asserting that courts have rarely ruled in favour of adverse possession owing to its contradictory requirement that the nature of possession is “peaceful as well as hostile”, the dissenting opinion said that the law should be struck off.
- Citing troubles that true owners have been subjected to, such as “avoidable and expensive litigation” by unscrupulous persons” who are acquainted with fraud, that the already overburdened machinery of the courts is further saddled with avoidable work, much to the misery of the litigants.
- If the law of adverse possession is struck off from the Limitation Act it will not hinder anybody’s right nor will it cause any neglect of land resources.
What is affecting trade momentum?
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
Why in news?
- Mired in a slowing economy, inflationary setting and tighter monetary controls worldover, India’s merchandise exports shrunk 12.7% on a year-on-year (YoY) basis to $34.66 billion in April, a six-month low. Imports fell sharper by 14% to $49.90 billion during the same period.
- The fall in imports and exports is not limited to India as other countries too have recorded similar declines, affirming the notion about slowing global demand.
What are the current underlying trends in global trade?
- The essential headwinds observed with respect to global trade are weaker economic activities worldwide, inflation and tightening of monetary policies, disrupted supply chains because of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and financial instability because of the collapse of several financial institutions in advanced economies.
- The ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe continues to have a bearing on the prices of energy, food and commodities. The impact of energy prices was strongest during the winter months in Europe as Russia was among the largest suppliers of energy to Europe before it was sanctioned.
- Europe responded to the loss of gas shipments from Russia by shifting to other suppliers, including the U.S., Qatar, Norway and Algeria. This potentially increased LNG prices elsewhere such as Japan, where the prices doubled between January 2022 to February 2023.
- The collapse of financial institutions such as of the crypto exchange FTX (November 2022) alongside three banks in the U.S. since March (the Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank), and the loss of confidence in Credit Suisse added to the troubled scenario.
Inflation scenario:
- The EU is India’s third largest trading partner after the U.S. and China. The European Economic Forecast held that the region would “narrowly escape the recession” that took shape around September.
- As for the U.S., inflation had “somewhat” moderated since the middle of the last year. Nonetheless, inflation pressures continued to run high with expectations of it receding to 2% having a “long way to go”.
- The JP Morgan Global Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), compiled by S&P, registered 49.6 in May, unchanged for the third consecutive month and indicating a marginal deterioration of business conditions. The indicator is used to assess manufacturing business conditions.
How are these related to trade?
- In a period of economic slowdown, international trade, both exports and imports, falls sharply as overall demand for goods and services stand reduced. There is an aversion for discretionary spending which particularly weighs on some imports and postponable expenditures.
- It is in this light that the exports of engineering goods, gems and jewellery, chemicals, and readymade garments and plastics, along with petroleum products contracted or grew at a slower pace in 2023.
- Similarly, inflation, the uneven rise in prices especially of essentials such as food and energy erodes the purchasing power of an individual.
- Additionally, inflation also affects the flow of capital to a developing country. Important to note, the share of exports of goods and services combined in GDP stood at 21.4% in FY 2021-22.
India, US finalise roadmap for fast tracking defence technology transfer
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
Why in news?
- India and the US recently concluded an ambitious roadmap for defence industrial cooperation to fast-track technology tie-ups and co-production of military platforms such as air combat and land systems, a move that comes in the wake of China's increasingly aggressive behaviour in the Indo-Pacific region.
- The new framework for cooperation was finalised during talks between Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his visiting American counterpart Lloyd Austin.
Key Highlights:
- They decided to initiate negotiations on a framework for the security of supply arrangement and a reciprocal defence procurement agreement, which will promote long-term supply chain stability.
- The initiative aims to change the "paradigm" for cooperation between the US and Indian defence sectors, including the implementation of a set of specific proposals that could provide India access to cutting-edge technologies and support its defence modernisation plans.
- They also committed to strengthening operational collaboration across all military services, with an eye to supporting India's leading role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific.
- US welcomed India's leadership role in the Quad Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness Initiative (IPMDA), which will provide cutting-edge domain awareness capability to countries across the Indo-Pacific region.
INDUS-X:
- They welcomed the establishment of the India-US Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X), a new initiative to advance cutting-edge technology cooperation.
- The initiative, which will be launched by the US-India Business Council on June 21, is designed to complement existing government-to-government collaboration by promoting innovative partnerships between US and Indian companies, investors, start-up accelerators, and academic research institutions.
Defence Secretary level talks:
- The US defence secretary also held separate talks with National Security Advisor.
- Both sides will identify opportunities for the co-development of new technologies and the co-production of existing and new systems besides facilitating increasing collaboration between defence start-up ecosystems of the two countries.
- Towards these objectives, they concluded a roadmap for US-India defence industrial cooperation which shall guide the policy direction for the next few years.
- The new roadmap will "fast-track technology cooperation and co-production in areas such as air combat and land mobility systems; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; munitions; and the undersea domain.
iCET:
- In a major move, US President and Indian Prime Minister announced in May 2022, the US-India initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET) to elevate and expand the strategic technology partnership and defence industrial cooperation between the two countries.
- The iCET is expected to forge closer linkages between the government, academia and industry of the two countries in areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, 5G and 6G, biotech, space and semiconductors.
- The India-US defence and strategic ties have been on an upswing in the last few years.
Defence Pacts:
- The two countries have inked key defence and security pacts over the past few years, including the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) in 2016 that allows their militaries to use each other's bases for repair and replenishment of supplies.
- The two sides also signed COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement) in 2018 which provides for interoperability between the two militaries and provides for the sale of high-end technology from the US to India.
- In October 2020, India and the US sealed the BECA (Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement) agreement to further boost bilateral defence ties.
- The pact provides for sharing of high-end military technology, logistics and geospatial maps between the two countries.
