Gujarat High Court: Long Possession Cannot Create Ownership Rights
Court orders removal of footpath encroachment despite decades of occupation
Ruling clarifies limits of Power of Attorney and strengthens housing board authority
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: December 17, 2025:
In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has held that long possession of property does not confer ownership rights, especially when the occupant is not the legal owner but merely a Power of Attorney holder. The case, Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani v. Gujarat Housing Board & Ors. (2025), involved a petition challenging a notice to remove encroachment from a public footpath in Ahmedabad.
Also Read: Emerging Legal Skills for Young Lawyers in India
Justice Mauna M. Bhatt dismissed the plea, ruling that encroachments on public pathways cannot be protected under writ jurisdiction and that mere possession, even for several years, does not create ownership.
Background of the case
- Petitioner’s claim: Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani argued that she had been in possession of the property for years, held a Power of Attorney from the original allottee, and regularly paid municipal taxes.
- Notice issued: On November 20, 2025, the Gujarat Housing Board directed her to remove encroachment within 15 days at Krushnanagar area, Naroda, Ahmedabad.
- Petition filed: She challenged the notice under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking protection of her possession.
- Court’s ruling: The High Court rejected her plea, holding that she was neither the owner nor the allottee and had no locus standi to claim ownership.
Court’s observations
Justice Bhatt made several key points:
- Long possession ≠ ownership: Continuous possession does not create ownership rights unless backed by legal title.
- Power of Attorney limits: A Power of Attorney holder cannot claim ownership; they only act on behalf of the owner.
- Encroachment removal justified: Public footpaths cannot be encroached upon, and authorities are right to issue removal notices.
- Title disputes not for writ jurisdiction: Ownership claims must be decided in civil courts, not through writ petitions.
Also Read: Nationwide freeze after Faridabad cyber fraud: What India’s laws say and how victims can get help
Legal framework
1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Ownership requires valid transfer through sale deed, gift deed, or inheritance.
- Possession alone does not confer ownership.
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Payment of municipal taxes or utility bills does not prove ownership.
3. Supreme Court precedents
- Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2011): Held that property cannot be transferred through Power of Attorney; only registered sale deeds confer ownership.
- Adverse possession doctrine: Requires hostile, continuous possession for 12 years against the true owner. Mere permissive possession or Power of Attorney does not qualify.
Importance of the ruling
- Protects public land: Prevents misuse of footpaths and public spaces through false ownership claims.
- Clarifies Power of Attorney misuse: Reinforces that POA holders cannot claim ownership rights.
- Strengthens housing board authority: Validates eviction notices against encroachers.
- Guidance for future disputes: Sets precedent for similar cases across India.
Also Read: Can home loan interest reduce capital gains tax under India’s new tax regime?
Social and legal implications
- Urban governance: Encroachments on public land disrupt city planning and pedestrian safety.
- Property disputes: Many families rely on POA documents without proper sale deeds; this ruling warns against such practices.
- Legal awareness: Citizens must ensure proper registration of property transfers to avoid future litigation.
- Housing board credibility: Strengthens trust in housing authorities to act against illegal encroachments.
Practical guidance for citizens
- Always register property transfers: Use registered sale deeds, not just Power of Attorney.
- Check housing board rules: Ensure compliance with allotment and transfer conditions.
- Avoid encroachments: Do not build or occupy public pathways; authorities can evict without compensation.
- Seek civil remedies: Ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts, not writ petitions.
- Maintain clear records: Keep sale deeds, mutation entries, and revenue records updated.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani v. Gujarat Housing Board is a landmark in property law. By holding that long possession does not create ownership rights, the Court reaffirmed the principle that legal title is essential for ownership.
Also Read: ESOP tax in India: Why the bill starts at exercise and smart ways to cut it
This judgment protects public land, clarifies the limits of Power of Attorney, and strengthens housing board authority. It serves as a warning to those relying on possession or municipal tax payments to claim ownership without proper legal documents.
Keywords for faster searches (Google + ChatGPT)
- Gujarat High Court long possession ruling
- Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani case 2025
- Power of Attorney property ownership India
- Suraj Lamp Supreme Court property transfer
- Adverse possession property law India
- Gujarat Housing Board encroachment removal
- Footpath encroachment case Ahmedabad
- Long possession does not confer ownership India
Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Wife’s Appeal Against Ex Parte Divorce After 10 Years