As per case facts, the plaintiff claimed long-standing possession of a plot, constructing a house and obtaining amenities, challenging an eviction order issued by the A.D.M. The State contended that ... the encroachment was recent and the eviction order was valid under the Colonisation Act. Lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming ownership through adverse possession based on continuous occupation for over three decades, leading the State to appeal. The question arose whether the plaintiff had legitimately acquired ownership of public property through adverse possession, meeting its stringent legal requirements, and if civil courts had jurisdiction despite the specific Act. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the claim of adverse possession due to a lack of concrete evidence and inconsistent assertions, noting that even the projected period of possession fell short of the legal requirement. The Court emphasized that a claim of adverse possession over public property demands rigorous proof and that the lower courts' findings were perverse and contrary to established legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.