2025 Supreme(SC) 532

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Yerikala Sunkalamma and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 3324 of 2015)
Decided On : 24-03-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Distinction between Land Patta Holder and Land Allottee – Patta serves as evidence of ownership or entitlement – Land Allottee, on other hand, may have limited rights, especially if allotment was made under specific government schemes or conditions that restrict ownership rights.
(2) Burden of proof of ownership – Possession is prima facie proof of ownership – A person in possession is entitled to remain in possession until another person can disclose a better title under Section 113 of BSA.
(3) Suits for declaration of title against Government differ from suits against private parties.
(4) Suits by or against Government – Statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC holds significance beyond mere formality – Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness – Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force citizens to vagaries of litigation.
(4) Resumption of land – Onus under Section 113 of BSA is on State to prove that Government has a subsisting title to Subject Land.

Headnote:

(A) Land Laws – Distinction between Land Patta Holder and Land Allottee – There exist several key differences between a Land Patta Holder and a Land Allottee – Land Patta Holder is a person who has been granted a Patta (a legal document) that confers rights over a specific piece of land, typically indicating ownership or entitlement to use land – On other hand, Land Allottee is a person to whom land has been allotted by Government or relevant authority, often under specific conditions and for designated purposes – As far as their legal standing is concerned, Patta Holder is recognized as having a legal claim to land, which can be defended in court – Patta serves as evidence of ownership or entitlement – Land Allottee, on other hand, may have limited rights, especially if allotment was made under specific government schemes or conditions that restrict ownership rights – While Land Patta Holders generally have right to transfer their interests in land, subject to any conditions specified in Patta, allottees may face restrictions on transferring their rights, particularly within a specified period or without government permission. (Paras 40, 41 and 42)

(B) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 113 [Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872] – Burden of proof of ownership – Possession is prima facie proof of ownership – A person in possession is entitled to remain in possession until another person can disclose a better title under Section 113 of BSA – Once plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of suit property, burden of proving that plaintiff is not owner is on defendant who affirms that plaintiff is not owner – The Section does not make distinction between Government and a private citizen – Section 113 is equally applicable where Government claims to be owner or challenges ownership of plaintiff who is in possession of property – What Section 113 of BSA does is to raise a statutory presumption in favour of a person who is in possession that he is owner and places a burden upon other persons who say that plaintiff is not owner. (Paras 72 and 74)

(C) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 113 [Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872] – Burden of proof of ownership – Maxim "possession follows title" is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected – Presumption of title as a result of possession can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party and possession of plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful – A person must establish that he has continued possession of suit property, while other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/encroachment, etc. – Where apparent title is with plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version – Even a revenue record is not a document of title – It merely raises presumption in regard to possession – Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of Evidence Act. (Paras 83 and 84)

(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Declaratory title suits against Government – Suits for declaration of title against Government differ from suits against private parties on two counts – First, there is presumption in favour of Government in such suits, as all lands which are unoccupied or not vested in any individual or local authority, are presumed to belong exclusively to Government – Secondly, there is additional burden of proof on party seeking declaration of title against Government – Plaintiff has to establish its possession over land in question for a period of thirty years as opposed to twelve years in case of adverse possession against a private party – A decree declaring title against Government must not be passed casually – Before granting any such decree, trial court must ensure that plaintiff has furnished adequate documentary evidence, either through title deeds tracing ownership for over thirty years or by establishing adverse possession for a period of thirty years – Trial court must carefully scrutinize nature of possession, determining whether same is authorized or unauthorized, permissive or casual, furtive or clandestine, as well as open, continuous, and hostile, or implied by title, to ensure that public property is not inadvertently converted into private ownership by unscrupulous elements – In a suit for possession based on title once plaintiff has been able to create high degree of probability so as to shift onus on defendant, it is for defendant to discharge his onus. (Paras 88 and 92)

(E) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 80 read with Order XXVII, Rule 1 – Suits by or against Government – Notice – Statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality – Primary objective behind Section 80 of CPC is to provide Government or a public officer with opportunity to assess legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable – Legislative intent is to ensure that public funds are not squandered on unnecessary legal battles – Provision of notice is intended to prompt Government or public officer to engage in negotiations for a fair settlement or, at the very least, to explain to potential plaintiff why their claim is being contested – Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness – Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force citizens to vagaries of litigation. (Paras 97, 99, 105 and 113)

(F) Constitution of India – Article 300-A – Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971 – Sections 6, 6-A and 6-B – Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Section 3 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 113 – Illegal dispossession from land (Resumption of land) – Before possession of Subject Land was taken over, plaintiffs were in possession of property for more than twenty years – Onus under Section 113 of BSA was on State to prove that Government had a subsisting title to Subject Land – Respondent State has not been able to prove its title to suit land – Just because suit land is surrounded by few other parcels of land owned by Government, that by itself will not make suit land of ownership of Government – If Government claims title over land, it has to establish it by producing relevant records in form of revenue records – State has failed to advance any credible evidence on record to rebut presumption – Appellants have Pattadars’ title to suit land in question – Purpose of law is advancement of justice – Least that was required in present case was for State Authorities to acknowledge notice issued by appellants and inform them as regards their stance – State must be asked to compensate the appellants in terms of money – Respondents directed to pay amount of Rs. 70 Lakhs to appellants by way of compensation within a period of three months. (Paras 72, 85, 113, 114 and 128)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from judgment and order passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh dated 10.07.2014 in AS No. 1931 0f 2002 by which High Court allowed first appeal filed by Respondents (original defendants) and thereby set aside judgment and decree dated 05.08.1999 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in Original Suit No. 115 of 1996 instituted by appellants herein (original plaintiffs).

Findings of Court:

Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this judgment to all High Courts across country and one copy each to all Chief Secretaries of respective State Governments with more emphasis on the chapter of Section 80 CPC as discussed by this Court in the judgment.

Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.