Orissa Court: Deity Land Subject to Limitation, Claim Denied

The Orissa High Court has determined that religious entities are not shielded from adverse possession claims simply because they are considered perpetual minors in law. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, writing for the bench, stated that the requirement for human agents to manage deity affairs does not remove their assets from the reach of limitation statutes. LiveLaw reported that the court relied on a previous Constitution Bench decision in the M. Siddiq case to reject the argument that deities are exempt from limitation periods.

The litigation involved land owned by the deity Maa Sureswari Devi in Sonepur. The appellant, whose father held the property for over fifty years, sought to establish ownership through long-term occupation. After local authorities declined to transfer the land title during a settlement process, the appellant filed a civil suit. The lower courts had previously rejected the claim, noting that the occupation was based on annual leases and was therefore permissive rather than hostile.

While the High Court agreed with the final dismissal, it corrected the legal reasoning of the lower tribunals. The bench held that the concurrent findings regarding the deity’s exemption from limitation were legally erroneous. The court emphasized that no special protection exists for religious properties that would override the standard laws of limitation. The need for representation by human trustees does not place deity-owned land beyond the scope of these legal constraints.

Nevertheless, the appeal was dismissed on separate factual grounds. Justice Panigrahi noted that family members cultivating the land under annual arrangements did not automatically acquire independent rights. The court clarified that simply continuing cultivation does not equate to maintaining hostile possession. The duration of occupation under lease agreements cannot be counted toward adverse possession claims unless the nature of the possession changes to be openly hostile for the required statutory period.

The bench concluded that while the deity is not immune from adverse possession claims, the appellant failed to demonstrate that his entry was hostile. The court held that mere permissive possession over many years does not grant title when hostile entry cannot be proven. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions on the substantive merits of the possession claim.