Adverse possession claim over state land dismissed in full

Background

After buying a building at auction, the opposing party claimed that an extension built beside it and a paved driveway had occupied adjacent state land for more than 20 years, and sued for transfer of title to that portion. We represented the State.

Our approach

We argued that the land was administrative property that cannot be acquired by prescription, and that in any event neither 20 years of possession nor possession as owner was established.

Issues and ruling

The court held that the land remained administrative property until its official decommissioning and could not be acquired by prescription before then. It also found no proof of when the extension was built, and held that because the occupied area far exceeded the registered building area, the possession was not possession as owner.

Outcome

The claim was dismissed in full, and the opposing party was ordered to bear the litigation costs.

This is the outcome of an individual case and does not guarantee the same result in similar matters. Some facts have been generalized to protect the parties involved.