SC Resolves Assigned Land Resumption Dispute, Emphasizes Pattadar Rights and Orders Compensation

The case originated from the dispossession of the appellants from a piece of land in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, in 1995 by the respondent-State for the purpose of constructing a District Institute of Educational Training Centre (DIET). The appellants asserted ownership dating back to 1943 when the property was private land mortgaged by its owner, Harijana Govindu. After a judgment in a mortgage case, the property was auctioned by the court in 1970 and bought by one Kuruva Ramanna, who sold it to the appellant's father through a registered sale deed in the same year. The appellant's father received a ryotwari patta passbook, and they remained in possession and enjoyment of the land, paying revenue, until they were dispossessed.

On the other hand, the State of Andhra Pradesh argued that the subject land was government arable waste land assigned to Harijana Govindu with non-alienable rights, which could be resumed for public purposes. The Trial Court granted the suit in favor of the appellants, holding procedural irregularities in the resumption proceedings. This was overruled by the High Court, which held that any alienation of assigned land, even by court auction, did not vest a better title than the original assignee had.

The Supreme Court on appeal criticized the approach adopted by the courts below. The Apex Court noted that the Trial Court concentrated on the legitimacy of the process of resumption, and the High Court emphasized the nature of the assigned land and violation of assignment conditions, both without attention to the appellants' unchallenged possession for nearly 25 years (between 1970 and 1995).

The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the granting of a Pattadar Passbook under the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971, raises a presumption in respect of the holder being entitled over the land.

The Apex Court emphasized that the issuance of a Pattadar Passbook under the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971, creates a presumption in favour of the holder having a right in the land, which when combined with the land revenue receipts, served as a strong indicator of the appellant's possession and enjoyment.

While acknowledging the principles concerning suits against the government requiring proof of title or adverse possession for a longer period, Supreme Court observed that the State failed to adduce credible evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the pattadar passbook and revenue records.

The Court also highlighted the State's inaction on the statutory notice issued under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the appellants before filing the suit, suggesting an adverse presumption could be drawn against the authorities for not responding and clarifying their stand.

Thus, the Supreme Court, although recognizing the construction of the DIET building on the land rendering restoration of possession impracticable, held that given the nature of the land, the length of litigation, and the appellant's possession and presumptive title, the State must offer reasonable compensation.

The Court dismissed the appeal with a direction to the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs within three months from the date of judgment as compensation to the appellants. The Registry was also directed to circulate the judgment to all the High Courts and Chief Secretaries with special reference to the discussion on Section 80 CPC.

Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Between: YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2025 INSC 383
Date of Judgment: 24-03-2025