Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.

Held: Appellants have Pattadars’ title to the suit land – Under the 1971 Act, once the recording of right is done, followed by the issuance of a pattadar pass book, the presumption in favour of the holder of the pass book is that he is having right in the said land – Appellants have sale deed in their favour which was never questioned by the State – Perusal of the transcripts of the oral evidence shows that the entire approach of the courts below was wrong – High Court overlooked the fact that the appellants were in possession of the land since 1970 and failed to consider the legal effect of the said period – State miserably failed to establish that the subject land was an assigned land – Onus was on the State to prove that the Government had a subsisting title to the subject land – Appellants established their possession over the suit land from 1970 by cogent and convincing evidence, and were in peaceful enjoyment of the suit land – Respondent not been able to prove its title to the suit land, they failed to advance any credible evidence on record to rebut the presumption – Furthermore, the State Authorities failed to acknowledge the notice issued by the appellants and inform them as regards their stance – It would be extremely difficult to give effect to a decree passed in favour of the appellant – Construction stood completed almost thirty years back, and to ask the State Authorities to demolish that part of the construction made over the suit land, would be too much – Having regard to the nature of the land, the total area and the time spent in pursuing the litigation for past thirty years, the State to pay Rs.70 lakhs towards compensation to the appellants. [Paras 45, 58, 72, 85, 114, 127]

Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – s.113 (corresponding to s.110 of the repealed Evidence Act, 1872) – Possession as a proof of ownership:

Held: s.113 embodies the principle that possession is prima facie proof of ownership – Once the plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of the suit property, the burden of proving that the plaintiff is not the owner is on the defendant who affirms that the plaintiff is not the owner – Section does not make a distinction between the Government and a private citizen – s.113 is equally applicable where a Government claims to be the owner or challenges the ownership of the plaintiff who is in possession of the property – s.113 raises a statutory presumption in favour of a person who is in possession that he is the owner and places burden upon the other persons who say that the plaintiff is not the owner – Presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title. [Paras 72, 84, 85]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.80 – Notice in government suits – Object of notice – Significance:

Held: Primary objective behind s.80 is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable – Unlike private parties, Government is expected to objectively assess the claim, seek legal advice as necessary, and make decisions in public interest within the stipulated twomonth time frame – Statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality – In practice, such notices have often become empty formalities – Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness – Courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice – In the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought. [Paras 97, 101, 102, 105, 113]

Suit – Declaratory title suit against the government – Adjudication of – Suits for declaration of title against government and suits against private parties – Difference: Held: In suits for declaration of title against the government, there is a presumption in favour of the Government, as all lands which are unoccupied or not vested in any individual/local authority, are presumed to belong exclusively to the Government – There is additional burden of proof on the party seeking declaration of title against Government – Plaintiff has to establish its possession over the land in question for a period of thirty years as opposed to twelve years in the case of adverse possession against a private party – Before granting a decree declaring title against the government, trial court must ensure that plaintiff has furnished adequate evidence for establishing ownership/adverse possession for over thirty years and name of the plaintiff has been recorded as the owner, holder, or occupant in the relevant revenue/municipal records for over thirty years – Trial court must scrutinize the nature of the possession to ensure public property is not inadvertently converted into private ownership by unscrupulous elements – In a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof, the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff’s title. [Paras 88, 92]

Land laws – “Patta”and “Pattadar” – Meaning of – Difference between Land Patta Holder and Land Allottee:

Held: “Pattadar” is a landowner who holds a land deed (Patta) directly from the government and is registered in the land revenue accounts as the holder or occupant of the land, liable to pay land revenue – “Patta” is a type of land deed issued by the government, indicating ownership or the right to hold land – Land Patta Holder is a person who has been granted a Patta (a legal document) that confers rights over a specific piece of land, indicating ownership or entitlement to use the land – Land Allottee is a person to whom land has been allotted by the Government or relevant authority, often under specific conditions and for designated purposes – Land Patta Holder possesses rights that are often permanent, heritable, and transferrable, as established under the land revenue regulations – Land Allottee may not have the same level of rights, allotment can be conditional and may not confer full ownership rights – Patta Holder is recognized as having a legal claim to the land, which can be defended in court – Land Patta Holders generally have the right to transfer their interests in the land, subject to any conditions specified in the patta, the allottees may face restrictions on transferring their rights, particularly within a specified period or without government permission. [Paras 38-42]