burden of proof

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023)

Trending Today Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) REHA BHARGAV Sep 27, 2025 On July 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the claim of adverse possession in Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors.. The Court clarified the strict requirements for proving adverse possession over immovable property, reinforcing the principles of property rights under the Limitation Act. Introduction The case of Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors., decided on July 28, 2023, centered on a dispute over ownership and possession of immovable property. The appellant, Gostho Behari Das, claimed ownership through adverse possession, while the respondents—legal heirs of the original owners—contested this claim. The Court was tasked with examining whether long-term possession amounted to adverse possession under Indian property law, and whether the appellant could extinguish the rights of the true owners. Facts of the Case The dispute involved immovable property allegedly possessed by the appellant for decades. Gostho Behari Das argued that his possession was open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner’s rights. The respondents, led by Dipak Kumar Sanyal, claimed that the appellant was merely a permissive occupier or licensee. Lower courts had ruled against the appellant, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Issue of the Case The central issue before the Court was: Whether the appellant, Gostho Behari Das, had acquired valid ownership of the property through adverse possession, thereby extinguishing the title of the original owners and their legal heirs? Arguments Appellant’s Arguments Continuous, open, and hostile possession for decades amounted to ownership. Improvements and acts of ownership were exercised publicly, putting true owners on notice. Respondents failed to assert ownership or initiate proceedings within the statutory limitation period. Once perfected, adverse possession confers legal title under precedents of Indian property law. Respondents’ Arguments The appellant’s possession was not hostile but permissive. Long-term possession alone does not equal adverse possession without clear hostility. The appellant failed to produce conclusive evidence of hostile occupation. The burden of proof lies with the claimant of adverse possession, which was not met. Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondents. Key observations included: Strict Proof Required: Adverse possession must be actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile for the entire statutory period. No Hostile Intent: The appellant’s possession was ambiguous and lacked the necessary hostility to defeat ownership. Mere Occupation Insufficient: Passive or long-term possession does not extinguish the title of the lawful owner. Burden of Proof: The claimant must establish all ingredients of adverse possession beyond doubt. Thus, the Court reaffirmed that adverse possession cannot be lightly presumed and must be proven with clear, cogent evidence. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. underscores the narrow and cautious application of adverse possession. It highlights that: Ownership rights cannot be defeated by mere inaction of the true owner. Adverse possession requires hostility, exclusivity, and continuous possession. Passive or permissive occupation does not qualify as adverse possession under the Limitation Act. This judgment strengthens the protection of property rights in India and reiterates that courts will strictly scrutinize claims of adverse possession. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Weapon Recovery Alone Insufficient for Murder Conviction

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Odisha YouTuber Under Probe for Alleged Links to Detained Spy Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony MAHI SINHA 20 May 2025 The Delhi High Court ruled that once an employee testifies under oath, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. This judgment reaffirms the rights of workers under Indian labor law and highlights key obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act. Delhi High Court Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Employee Testimony In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that once an employee testifies under oath, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. The case involved Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and a sanitation worker, with Justice Manoj Jain presiding over the matter. Background: Sanitation Worker Denied Minimum Wage The case dates back to 2007 when Sangeeta began working at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital as a sanitation worker, earning Rs. 5,500 per month. She alleged the hospital failed to provide basic employment benefits such as House Rent Allowance, transport allowance, and paid leave. According to her, the salary was also below the Delhi Government’s prescribed minimum wage. After she raised concerns with the hospital management, her employment was terminated in 2015. In response, Sangeeta filed an industrial dispute, claiming she was unjustly dismissed. Hospital Claims Contractual Outsourcing The hospital argued that Sangeeta was not their employee but was engaged by contractor M/s ACME Enterprises. They claimed all sanitation services were outsourced, and her employment ended in April 2015 after a new contractor was appointed. They insisted that Sangeeta’s name was absent from the contractor’s roster and that she had failed to prove continuous employment for over 240 days as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Section 25F. Labor Court Awards Compensation, Hospital Appeals Despite the hospital’s arguments, the labor court ruled in favor of Sangeeta and awarded her Rs. 70,000 as compensation. Unhappy with the decision, the hospital appealed the ruling to the Delhi High Court. Court Analysis: Shifting Burden of Proof Justice Manoj Jain upheld the labor court’s decision. He ruled that while the initial burden to prove continuous employment lies with the employee, once the employee provides substantial evidence—such as salary checks and an unchallenged sworn statement—the burden then shifts to the employer. In this case, Sangeeta’s sworn testimony and payment records sufficed to shift the responsibility to the hospital. However, the hospital failed to provide documentation supporting its outsourcing claims, such as a valid contract with M/s ACME Enterprises or a list of workers employed by the contractor. No Reinstatement, Only Compensation While acknowledging the unlawful termination, the court declined to order Sangeeta’s reinstatement. Citing a long lapse of time and improper hiring practices, the judge ruled that monetary compensation was more appropriate. The court emphasized that appointing government workers without following due procedure would violate Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to the precedent set in Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, reinforcing the need for merit-based and transparent recruitment in public employment. Final Verdict: Compensation Upheld The Delhi High Court dismissed the hospital’s petition and upheld the labor court’s award of Rs. 70,000 in compensation to Sangeeta. The judgment reinforces the principle that employers must maintain proper records and cannot shirk their responsibilities through outsourcing claims. Conclusion: A Win for Workers’ Rights and Legal Accountability The Delhi High Court’s judgment is a significant milestone in upholding the rights of contractual and daily wage workers in India. By shifting the burden of proof to the employer after sworn employee testimony, the court has reinforced accountability under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also sends a clear message that outsourcing arrangements cannot be used as a shield to deny rightful compensation or benefits. This case serves as a precedent for similar labor disputes, especially where continuous service and minimum wage violations are in question. Employers must ensure compliance with employment laws and maintain transparent documentation, while workers can feel more empowered to assert their rights through legal channels. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Read More »

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Rule Requiring Title Proof for Property Registration Delhi High Court Fines Shazia Ilmi ₹25,000 in Privacy Violation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai India and Nepal Sign MoU to Strengthen Judicial Cooperation and Legal Exchange Calcutta High Court Allows Anjani Putra Sena’s Ram Navami Rally in Howrah with Strict Conditions Waqf Amendment Bill Sparks Uproar: Opposition Moves Supreme Court Over Alleged Bias Against Muslims “NALSA Files PIL for Humanitarian Release of Aged and Sick Inmates from Indian Jails” Which law states that Aadhaar is required to operate bank accounts? Questions for the Supreme Court the Delhi government’s refusal to grant workers’ allowances Opening the Monument Examining the Long-Term Effects of the 1981 Case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi on Individual Liberty and Indian Jurisprudence Rajya Sabha Adopts Bill 2025 for Waqf (Amendment) Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes MAHI SINHA 08 Apr 2025 The goal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [the “ID Act”) and its several amendments has always been to guarantee workers social justice and to make sure they are not left defenseless against businesses and industries. Section 17B of the ID Act is one such clause. It was included by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, and it became operative on August 21, 1984. Because the employer has challenged the order in the High Court or Supreme Court, workers who have successfully obtained an award from the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, or National Tribunal that sets aside an order of termination of their service and directs their reinstatement are not permitted to return to work. This is why Section 17B was enacted. An employer is then responsible for paying the employee’s last salary while the suit is pending. In Dena Bank vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel, the Supreme Court of India explained the purpose of Section 17B, holding that it is to alleviate to some degree the hardship that is caused to the worker due to the delay during the execution of the present during the duration of actions in which the reinstatement award is under objection before the High Court or the Supreme Court. However, some workers are abusing this social welfare legislation as they unfairly enrich themselves while harming the interests of the industries and how the industries have been forced to pay wages even though the workers have found gainful employment elsewhere. The worker must file an affidavit certifying that he is not financially engaged elsewhere in order to be entitled for earnings under Section 17B. The proviso to Section 17B, however, states that the Court will order that no wages be paid if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, that the worker had a job and had been paid enough during the challenge/appeal period, or a portion of it. This clause therefore primarily aims to protect workers who are not engaged in productive employment and who would face financial difficulties in the absence of Section 17B wages. This isn’t always the case, though. The ID Act’s lack of a corollary clause that forbids workers from providing false affidavits of non-employment and no penalties for workers who commit perjury has resulted in the misuse of Section 17B. In order to obtain back pay, some workers who obtained gainful jobs during the trial or after an appeal produce fake affidavits. The ID Act does not provide industries with a haven to protect themselves from such bold human behavior. The only remaining option for the harmed industry would be to file a perjury lawsuit against the dishonest employee. Even if perjury is proven, there will be no financial compensation, therefore this is also of little concern. Furthermore, there have been other instances where the burden of demonstrating whether a worker is gainfully employed has passed from the company to the worker. The Supreme Court recently upheld one of its earlier decisions in the case of National Gandhi Museum vs. Sudhir Sharma, decided on 24.09.2021, which stated that the employee bears the burden of proving that he was not financially secure during the period of challenge or appeal because he is aware of it. The court further held that the facts of each case determine whether or not this burden is discharged. However, the Supreme Court later adopted a different stance in Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Vs. Manganese Ore India, which was determined on 10.12.2021, concluding that the employer had the burden of demonstrating the employee’s gainful employment during the relevant period. It is challenging to determine the current legal position in light of these contradictory Supreme Court rulings. The fact that the employer will not be able to recoup the back wages that were already paid to the worker under orders issued under Section 17B of the ID Act while the appeal is pending, even if the High Court or the Supreme Court ultimately overturns the reinstatement order, further exacerbates the issues facing industries. The case of Dilip Mani Dubey vs. Siel Limited and others reaffirmed this stance. Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is relevant while evaluating the burden of proof for gainful work because it specifies that the burden of proof rests with the individual when certain facts are particularly within his knowledge. An employee’s employment at another company during the trial or appeal period becomes a fact that he is specifically aware of. Therefore, it must be the employee’s responsibility to demonstrate that they are not engaged in gainful job. In Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, the Supreme Court expressed this opinion. In light of the current legal system and rulings, the legislature must intervene to resolve the confusion and enact strict legislation that forbids the abuse of the ID Act’s welfare provisions. To make sure that the advantage of Section

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023)

Supreme Court Rules Weapon Recovery Alone Insufficient for Murder Conviction

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info