Mahatama Gandhi's grandson trustee used AI to reclaim 30 acre land in US' Virginia after 20-month legal battle

A US court has ruled in favour of a charitable trust established by Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson Kanu Gandhi and his wife Shiva Gandhi, ordering a Virginia resident to vacate a 30-acre property he had claimed through adverse possession. The ruling followed a 20-month legal battle led by Parimal Desai, the trust’s managing trustee, who challenged the neighbour’s claim and fought to restore control of the land.

The property, located in Warren County, Virginia, adjoining Shenandoah National Park, was purchased by Kanu and Shiva Gandhi in 1987. The dispute began after US resident Gregory Black sent a legal notice to Desai’s residence on January 10, 2025, claiming ownership of the land under Virginia’s adverse possession law.

According to Desai, who spoke to TOI, Black claimed to have occupied the property since 2008. However, the trustee challenged the claim, arguing that Black could not establish all the legal conditions required to acquire ownership through adverse possession.


Also Read: Winter arrives early in Delhi-NCR, temperature drops to coldest in 4 years in Gurgaon, Noida, Ghaziabad, Faridabad

How the neighbour claimed ownership of Gandhi family land

Black relied on Virginia’s adverse possession law, which allows a person to claim ownership of another person's property after 15 years of qualifying possession. To support his claim, he presented evidence of trails, a cabin, tree stands, a culvert and other improvements allegedly made on the land, along with photographs.

Desai told TOI that he hired lawyers in the US while coordinating the case from India. He also said he used artificial intelligence tools to identify ways to challenge Black’s claim.

The trustee said he visited the property in 2024 and commissioned a land survey at a cost of $4,500. He subsequently got Kanu Gandhi’s will probated in a US court in 2025 and secured the land title in the charitable trust’s name.

During the trial, held from September 8 to 11, Desai presented evidence to challenge Black’s claim of continuous and exclusive possession. According to him, geographical information system (GIS) maps showed that the cabin had not existed on the property for the required 15-year period. He also said his own visits to the land since 2020 and evidence that another woman was residing there undermined Black’s assertion that he had exclusive possession.

Desai also informed the court about Kanu Gandhi’s family background and the charitable trust’s objective of propagating Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy.

US court orders removal of cabin, hunting stands

In an order dated October 21, Judge Daryl L. Funk of the Warren County Circuit Court ruled in favour of Desai and the charitable trust.

The court directed Black to remove the cabin, hunting stands, hunting huts and his personal belongings from the property within 30 days, at his own expense. He was also ordered to surrender possession of the land and stop entering it or exercising any ownership rights over the property.

Additionally, Black was directed to pay $11,375 towards the fees of the Guardian ad Litem appointed to represent unknown heirs.

How the Gandhi couple’s US property passed to the charitable trust

Kanu Gandhi and Shiva Gandhi purchased the 30-acre Virginia property in 1987. The couple returned to India in 2013 and spent their final years in South Gujarat. Kanu Gandhi died in Surat in November 2016, and his assets passed to his wife under his will.

In 2018, Shiva Gandhi established the Dr Schiva and Kanu Ramdas Mohandas Gandhi Charitable Trust and registered her will. Following her death in 2020, the will was executed and Desai took charge as the trust’s managing trustee. The trust inherited the couple’s properties and financial assets to support its charitable activities.

Desai told TOI that securing the US property under the trust’s ownership was necessary if it was to be used for the organisation’s objectives.

What is adverse possession under Virginia law?

According to a blog by Ashwell & Ashwell, adverse possession is a legal doctrine under which someone may acquire ownership of land belonging to another person if they occupy it without the owner's permission and satisfy specific legal conditions for a prescribed period.

In Virginia, the statutory period is 15 continuous years. However, simply using or occupying someone else's property for that length of time does not automatically establish ownership. The claimant must demonstrate that the possession meets several requirements:

• Continuous possession: The claimant must occupy the property continuously for the statutory period of 15 years.
• Open and notorious possession: The occupation must be visible and apparent rather than concealed, so that the rightful owner could reasonably become aware of it.
• Exclusive possession: The claimant must exercise control over the property as an owner would, rather than sharing possession with the rightful owner or the public.
• Hostile possession: The occupation must be without the owner's permission and involve a claim of possession that is adverse to the owner's interests. The term does not necessarily imply aggression or hostility in the ordinary sense.

Ashwell & Ashwell explains that these conditions are intended to distinguish a genuine claim of adverse possession from ordinary use of another person's land. A claimant must establish the required elements, and failure to satisfy even one of them can undermine the claim. In the Gandhi trust's case, Desai challenged Black's assertions of exclusive and actual possession, and the court ultimately ruled in favour of the trust.