Steps to get back your property from illegal possession

They don’t reside in these properties and don’t have possession of their property at all times.

They are unable to make frequent visits, so they end up giving possession/ control of the property to friends, acquaintances, and relatives.

Apart from this, with time many of the occupants, relatives, and friends feel they own the place since there is no one to monitor and supervise the property.

Oral and unregistered agreements with tenants/ caretakers are quite common resulting in illegal possession.

Properties without caretakers and tenants which are not frequently visited by the owners themselves are a great catch for land mafia to trespass and occupy illegally.

Section 436 - Mischief
As per Section 436, if someone intentionally or knowingly commits mischief by using fire or an explosive substance to destroy a building that is usually used as a place of worship, human dwelling, or a property storage place, they will be punished with either imprisonment for life or imprisonment for up to ten years. Additionally, they may also be fined. Section 425 defines 'mischief' as when someone intentionally damages or destroys something that doesn't belong to them. They can also be charged with mischief if they know that their actions will likely cause harm or damage to someone or the public. The damage can be anything that reduces the value or usefulness of the property or affects it negatively. It doesn't matter if the person who committed the act didn't intend to harm the owner of the property. Mischief can be committed on property that belongs to the person who did it, or to other people. 

Section 441 - Criminal Trespass
As per Section 441, if someone enters someone else's property without permission and with the intention to commit a crime or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person who owns the property, or if they lawfully entered but then remained unlawfully to intimidate, insult or annoy, or to commit a crime, then they are committing "criminal trespass." Section 447 prescribes punishment for criminal trespass as if someone commits criminal trespass, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or both.

Section 442 - House Trespass
As per Section 442, if someone commits criminal trespass on a building, tent, or vessel that is being used as a human dwelling or a building used for worship or property storage, without permission, they are committing "house trespass." Even if only a part of their body enters the building without permission, it still counts as "house trespass." Section  448 prescribes punishment for house trespass as if someone commits house trespass, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, or a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.

Section 443 - Lurking House Trespass
As per Section 443, if someone enters a building, tent, or vessel without permission and takes steps to conceal their entry from someone who has the right to exclude or eject them, they are committing "lurking house trespass." Section 453 prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass as imprisonment for up to two years and also fine.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
In this recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held a contrary position that a plaintiff can file a suit for the perfection of title by adverse possession. The question for consideration before the Court was "Whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only enables the person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a Plaintiff to protect the possession of the immovable property or recover it in a case of dispossession?"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 59 of the Judgment held as follows "...In our opinion, the consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the Plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, can file a Suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession....". 
The Hon'ble Supreme Court overruled the decision in Gurudwara Sahab Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala as well as the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court which relied on it.
 

Nair Service Society Limited v. KC Alexander
In this case, the law of adverse possession as was judicially summed up by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Perry v. Clissold was approved. In that case, it was observed that if a rightful owner does not claim his right against a possessor within a given time, his ownership right stands extinguished. the Limitation Act, 1963, lays down a limitation period of 12 years for the suit of possession of immovable property or any interest based on the title. The period for limitation for the government, however, is 30 years by virtue of Section 25 of the Act.
 

Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil v. State of Maharashtra
In this case, it has been held that, unless enjoyment of the property is accompanied by adverse animus, mere possession for a long period even over a statutory period, would not be sufficient to mature the title to the property by adverse possession.
 

Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati 
In this case, the Supreme Court defined adverse possession as: “A person, though having no right to enter into possession of the property of someone else, does so and continues in possession setting up title in himself and adversely to the title of the owner, commences prescribing title into himself and such prescription having continued for a period of 12 years, he acquires title not on his own but on account of the default or inaction on part of the real owner, which stretched over a period of 12 years results into extinguishing of the latter's title."
 

SM Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina 
In this case, the equitable principle of nec vi nec clam nec precario (without force, without secrecy, without permission) was propounded wherein it was held that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent, and a plea is required, to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found.
 

They don’t reside in these properties and don’t have possession of their property at all times.

They are unable to make frequent visits, so they end up giving possession/ control of the property to friends, acquaintances, and relatives.

Apart from this, with time many of the occupants, relatives, and friends feel they own the place since there is no one to monitor and supervise the property.

Oral and unregistered agreements with tenants/ caretakers are quite common resulting in illegal possession.

Properties without caretakers and tenants which are not frequently visited by the owners themselves are a great catch for land mafia to trespass and occupy illegally.

Section 436 - Mischief
As per Section 436, if someone intentionally or knowingly commits mischief by using fire or an explosive substance to destroy a building that is usually used as a place of worship, human dwelling, or a property storage place, they will be punished with either imprisonment for life or imprisonment for up to ten years. Additionally, they may also be fined. Section 425 defines 'mischief' as when someone intentionally damages or destroys something that doesn't belong to them. They can also be charged with mischief if they know that their actions will likely cause harm or damage to someone or the public. The damage can be anything that reduces the value or usefulness of the property or affects it negatively. It doesn't matter if the person who committed the act didn't intend to harm the owner of the property. Mischief can be committed on property that belongs to the person who did it, or to other people.

Section 441 - Criminal Trespass
As per Section 441, if someone enters someone else's property without permission and with the intention to commit a crime or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person who owns the property, or if they lawfully entered but then remained unlawfully to intimidate, insult or annoy, or to commit a crime, then they are committing "criminal trespass." Section 447 prescribes punishment for criminal trespass as if someone commits criminal trespass, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or both.

Section 442 - House Trespass
As per Section 442, if someone commits criminal trespass on a building, tent, or vessel that is being used as a human dwelling or a building used for worship or property storage, without permission, they are committing "house trespass." Even if only a part of their body enters the building without permission, it still counts as "house trespass." Section 448 prescribes punishment for house trespass as if someone commits house trespass, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, or a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.

Section 443 - Lurking House Trespass
As per Section 443, if someone enters a building, tent, or vessel without permission and takes steps to conceal their entry from someone who has the right to exclude or eject them, they are committing "lurking house trespass." Section 453 prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass as imprisonment for up to two years and also fine.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
In this recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held a contrary position that a plaintiff can file a suit for the perfection of title by adverse possession. The question for consideration before the Court was "Whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only enables the person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a Plaintiff to protect the possession of the immovable property or recover it in a case of dispossession?"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 59 of the Judgment held as follows "...In our opinion, the consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the Plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, can file a Suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession....".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court overruled the decision in Gurudwara Sahab Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala as well as the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court which relied on it.

Nair Service Society Limited v. KC Alexander
In this case, the law of adverse possession as was judicially summed up by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Perry v. Clissold was approved. In that case, it was observed that if a rightful owner does not claim his right against a possessor within a given time, his ownership right stands extinguished. the Limitation Act, 1963, lays down a limitation period of 12 years for the suit of possession of immovable property or any interest based on the title. The period for limitation for the government, however, is 30 years by virtue of Section 25 of the Act.

Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil v.State of Maharashtra
In this case, it has been held that, unless enjoyment of the property is accompanied by adverse animus, mere possession for a long period even over a statutory period, would not be sufficient to mature the title to the property by adverse possession.

Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati
In this case, the Supreme Court defined adverse possession as: “A person, though having no right to enter intopossession of the property of someone else, does so and continues in possession setting up title in himself and adversely to the title of the owner, commences prescribing title into himself and such prescription having continued for a period of 12 years, he acquires title not on his own but on account of the default or inaction on part of the real owner, which stretched over a period of 12 years results into extinguishing of the latter's title."

SM Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina
In this case, the equitable principle of nec vi nec clam nec precario (without force, without secrecy, without permission) was propounded wherein it was held that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent, and a plea is required, to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found.