Between 2022 and 2023 alone, around 740,000 individuals were removed from their homes, and over 150,000 houses were pulled down by Indian government authorities; more than half of these demolitions were carried out on the pretext of upgrading their condition (Housing and Land Rights Network [HLRN], 2024). The paper inquires whether the continuous, ancient, and open occupancy of land by the people of Dharavi qualifies as adverse possession under Indian Law, and whether there is a possible legal route to exploit it. By analyzing the Limitation Act of 1963 and its interpretation in the courts, the authors demonstrate that while the duration and openness conditions of adverse possession may be met by many residents of Dharavi easily, there remain two significant problems: in an informal settlement like Dharavi it is impossible to set the starting date of occupancy, and the existence of a contradiction between the occupying population and the state, which provided the people with water and electricity, and ration cards as well. The authors also investigate the thirty-year limitation period that is imposed on public land under Article 112, as well as the Supreme Court’s ambiguous attitude towards the doctrine of adverse possession. Ultimately, the paper reinforces its conclusion that adverse possession is more a legal principle than a litigation strategy.