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

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 383
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/yerikala-sunkalamma-anr-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-department-of-revenue-ors-38317
- **Pages:** 102

## Headnote

Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment
of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful
owners of the 'Patta Land'.
Headnotes†
Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books) Act, 1971 - Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Assigned government
land - Resumption of land - Father of the appellant acquired
the subject land by way of a registered sale deed in 1970
and after his death, appellants have been in possession and
enjoyment of the subject land - Appellant's case that in 1995 the
respondents-Government 'illegally' dispossessed them from
the subject land without any intimation/prior notice and without
payment of compensation, for construction of an Education
Institute - Upon explanation sought, the respondents informed
that the subject land was an assigned government land, the
Government retained the rights to resume the land at any time
for 'public purpose', and due process of law was followed to
resume the land in 1989 whereas appellant's case that subject
land was 'Patta Land' and could not have been assigned to
anybody - Suit by appellant seeking declaration of title to the
subject land, and direction to the respondents to deliver the
possession to them - Trial court decreed the suit in favour
of the appellants declaring them to be the lawful owners of
the subject land and directed the respondents to deliver the
possession of the land to the appellants - However, the High
Court set aside the said order - Correctness:
Held: Appellants have Pattadars' title to the suit land - Under
the 1971 Act, once the recording of right is done, followed by the
* Author
1012
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 rai

## Text

_Characters 0–39,929 of 220,031. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39929 for what follows._

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1011 : 2025 INSC 383
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr.
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025)
24 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment
of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful
owners of the 'Patta Land'.
Headnotes†
Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books) Act, 1971 - Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Assigned government
land - Resumption of land - Father of the appellant acquired
the subject land by way of a registered sale deed in 1970
and after his death, appellants have been in possession and
enjoyment of the subject land - Appellant's case that in 1995 the
respondents-Government 'illegally' dispossessed them from
the subject land without any intimation/prior notice and without
payment of compensation, for construction of an Education
Institute - Upon explanation sought, the respondents informed
that the subject land was an assigned government land, the
Government retained the rights to resume the land at any time
for 'public purpose', and due process of law was followed to
resume the land in 1989 whereas appellant's case that subject
land was 'Patta Land' and could not have been assigned to
anybody - Suit by appellant seeking declaration of title to the
subject land, and direction to the respondents to deliver the
possession to them - Trial court decreed the suit in favour
of the appellants declaring them to be the lawful owners of
the subject land and directed the respondents to deliver the
possession of the land to the appellants - However, the High
Court set aside the said order - Correctness:
Held: Appellants have Pattadars' title to the suit land - Under
the 1971 Act, once the recording of right is done, followed by the
* Author
1012
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1013
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
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
1014
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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]
Case Law Cited
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund
[2007] 13 SCR 77 : (2007) 13 SCC 565; Nair Service Society
Ltd. v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander [1968] 3 SCR 163 : AIR 1968
SC 1165; Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector
[2003] 2 SCR 180 : (2003) 3 SCC 472; State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors. v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company [2013] 4 SCR
394 : (2013) 9 SCC 319; R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Govt. of
Karnataka, Revenue Department [2010] 4 SCR 904 : (2010) 5 SCC
203; R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami &
V.P. Temple and Another [2003] Supp. 4 SCR 450 : (2003) 8 SCC
752; Addagada Raghavamma v. A. Addagada Chenchamma [1964]
2 SCR 933 : AIR 1964 SC 136; Bihari Chowdhary and Another v.
State of Bihar and Others [1984] 3 SCR 309 : (1984) 2 SCC 627;
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1015
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd. [1978] 1 SCR
746 : (1978) 1 SCC 68; Raghunath Das v. Union of India and
Another [1969] 1 SCR 450 : 1968 SCC OnLine SC 199; Land
Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O. v. Mekala Pandu, 2004 SCC OnLine
AP 217; State of A.P. and Anr. v. P. Peda Chinnayya & Ors., 1996
SCC OnLine AP; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bondapalli Sanyasi,
2001 SCC OnLine AP 1037; Wazir Chand v. State of H.P. [1955] 1
SCR 408 : (1954) 1 SCC 787; Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan
v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1982] 1 SCR 1137 : (1982) 1 SCC 39;
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [1994] Supp. 1 SCR
807 : (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd.
and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. [2011] 12 SCR 191 : (2011) 9
SCC 354 - referred to.
Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan & Ors. (1987) 1 APLJ 171;
Chittoor District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Products
Factory v. C. Rajamma (1996) 2 ALT 526; K.M. Kamallula Basha
v. District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor (2009) 3 ALD 385;
Narayan Anandram Marwadi v. Gowbai, widow of Dhondiba, ILR
37 Bom. 415; M. Krishna Aiyar v. The Secretary of State for
India, I.L.R. 33 Mad. 173; Jagannath Shivnarayan v. Municipal
Commissioner, City Municipality, Indore, AIR 1951 MB 80; Suraji
Fulaji v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 Bom 193; Hanmantrao v.
Secretary of State, (1901) 25 Bom 287; The Secretary of State
for India in Council v. Chimanlal Jamnadas and others, AIR 1942
Bom 161 - referred to.
Pandurang Balaji v. Krishnaji Govind (1903) 28 Bom. 125 -
approved.
Bater v. Bater (1950) 2 All ER 458 - referred to.
List of Acts
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1977; Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books) Act, 1971; Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908; Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
List of Keywords
Ryotwari patta; Illegal dispossession; Patta land; Pattadar
passbook; Resumption proceedings; Arable wastelands; Board
Standing Order No. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue
Standing Orders; Mandal revenue officer; Tehsildar; D-Form patta;
1016
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
Khatadar; Land patta holder; Public interest; Right to property;
Central Law Commission; Administration's lack of responsiveness;
Assigned government land; Resumption of land; Compensation;
Public purpose; Presumption; Possession as a proof of ownership;
Statutory presumption; Notice in government suits; Statutory notice;
Public Authorities; Declaratory title suit against the government;
Suits for declaration of title against government; Suits against
private parties; Burden of proof; "Patta"and "Pattadar"; Land Allottee.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh in AS No. 1931 of 2002
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Raavi Yogesh Venkata, Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Kotte Venkata Pawan
Kumar, Ms. Thithiksha Padmam.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Dhruv Yadav, V. Sridhar
Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta, Rohit Jaiswal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL AVERMENTS .............................................................
2
B.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT .............................................................
18
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS ..............
23
D.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS .............
27
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1017
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
E.
ANALYSIS ...................................................................................
34
i.
The Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971 ...........................................
36
ii.
The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977 ..............................................................
39
iii. Oral Evidence on record .......................................................
45
iv. Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ........
57
v.
How is the Court expected to consider title suits against the
Government ....................................................................
62
vi. Section 80 of CPC ................................................................
67
vii. Object of Notice in Government Suits ..................................
71
viii. Essentials of Section 80 CPC ...............................................
72
ix. Payment of compensation in cases of resumption of land ...
77
F.
CONCLUSION .............................................................................
93
1.
Leave granted
2.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 10.07.2014 in AS No. 1931 of
2002 by which the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the
Respondents (original defendants) and thereby set aside the judgment
and decree dated 05.08.1999 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kurnool in Original Suit No. 115 of 1996 instituted by the
appellants herein (original plaintiffs).
A.
FACTUAL AVERMENTS
3.
The subject matter of the present litigation is a parcel of land,
admeasuring approximately 3.34 acres, bearing Survey No. 451/1
situated in Dinnedevarapadu Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra
Pradesh (hereinafter, the "Subject Land"). It is the case of the
appellants that in 1995, the Respondents, without any intimation
or prior notice, unlawfully dispossessed the appellants from the
Subject Land - a purported act that compelled them to institute O.S.
1018
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
No. 115 of 1996 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Kurnool, wherein the appellants sought a declaration of their title to
the Subject Land.
4.
According to the appellants, the ownership of the land can be traced
back to 1943. The subject land was then originally owned by one
Harijana Govindu. It is the case of the appellants that the subject
land was not a government assigned land but rather a private
property over which the respondents had no right, title or interest
at any point of time.
5.
The Subject Land was mortgaged by Harijana Govindu with Perugu
Swamy Reddy by virtue of a mortgage deed dated 06.06.1943 as
security for a sum of Rs. 100/-. The said mortgage deed was not
redeemed during the lifetime of Harijana Govindu and Perugu Swamy
Reddy As Harijana Govindu defaulted on the payment of the loan,
the Legal Representatives of Perugu Swamy Reddy instituted a suit
for the recovery of the said sum, bearing suit number O.S. No. 178
of 1967, before the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Kurnool.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the legal representatives
for sale of the mortgaged property.
6.
In furtherance of the aforesaid decree, execution proceedings were
instituted by the legal representatives of Perugu Swamy Reddy
in E.P. No. 69 of 1961 before the Court of the Principal District
Munsif, Kurnool. In the said proceedings, the Subject Land was
duly auctioned in a Court Auction dated 22.04.1970, whereupon one
Kuruva Ramanna purchased it for Rs. 600/- and took possession of
the land by way of a process issued by the Court on 09.10.1970.
The delivery of possession of the subject land was recorded by the
District Munsif Court, Kurnool on 06.11.1970. Later on, 10.12.1970,
a sale certificate was issued by the Trial Court under Order 21 Rule
94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the "CPC"). The
relevant portion of the Certificate issued under Order 21 Rule 94 of
C.P.C is reproduced herein below:
"In the execution of the above decree on 22.4.1970 auction
was conducted in respect of the Schedule immovable
property belonging to the respondents, knocked down
in favour of the Auction Purchaser P. Ramannna for Rs.
600/ only and the said sale was confirmed. on 1.7.1970
certificate is issued accordingly."
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1019
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
7.
The auction purchaser viz. Kuruva Ramanna further transferred
the property to one Yerikala Rosanna, the deceased father of the
appellant no. 1 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1970
bearing Document No. 3154 of 1970, for a total sale consideration
of Rs. 600/-. Accordingly, the father of the appellant no.1 was in
possession and enjoyment of the Subject Land till his death in
1986. The Ryotwari patta was also issued in favor of the father
of appellant no. 1 in respect of the subject land and other survey
numbers, considering his uninterrupted possession and enjoyment
thereof. The relevant portion of the sale deed is reproduced herein
below:
"Document No. 3154 of 1970
Sale Deed for Rs. 600/-, dated 10.12.1970 1970 December
10 equivalent Shalivahana Shaka 192 Margasira 19 Kuruva
P. Ramanna, S/o Kuruva P. Ramanna, Agriculturist, R/o
Dinnadevarapadu Village, Deinnedevarapadu P.O. Kurnool
Taluq, Kurnool District, executed the sale deed in favour of
Yerukala Roshanna, S/o Yerukala N aganna, agriculturist,
R/o Dinnadevarapadu Village, Dinnadevarapadu Post,
Kunool Taluq, Kurnool District, which recites that and my
personal and family agricultural expenses today received
a sum of Rs. 600/-only in consideration of whereof I sold
the schedule property in your favour and delivered the
possession of it to you today itself. From today onwards
you, your legal heirs are entitled to enjoy with absolute
and Saleable rights over the schedule land and that from
today neither myself nor my legal heirs have any right or
title over the schedule land. I have executed the sale deed
with my free will and consent."
8.
On the death of his father, the appellant no. 1 is said to have been
in possession and enjoyment of the Subject Land. According to the
appellants, the principal cause of action to institute the suit first arose
in the year 1995, as they came to be 'illegally' dispossessed from the
Subject Land without any intimation or prior notice by the respondents.
It is the case of the appellants that as the respondents wanted to
construct a District Institute of Education and Training Centre (DIET)
building on the aforesaid land, they were forcibly dispossessed without
payment of any compensation of any description.
1020
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9.
According to the appellants, upon seeking explanation from the
respondents as regards their subject land, they were informed that
the subject land was an assigned government land, endowed with
non-alienable rights to it and that the Government retained the rights
to resume the assigned land at any time for a 'public purpose'.
10. The appellants refuted the claim of the respondents before the Trial
Court, contending that the Subject Land was a 'Patta Land' and,
by its very nature, it could not have been assigned to anybody. In
support of this position, it was averred that a Pattadar Passbook
was issued to the appellants under the Andhra Pradesh (Record of
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971 (for short, the
"Act of 1971").
11. Aggrieved by the foregoing, the appellants submitted a representation
dated 23.01.1996 addressed to the District Collector, Kurnool, stating
that the subject land was purchased from one Kuruva Ramanna under
a registered sale deed in the year 1970 for a valid consideration and
they had been in exclusive possession of the same. The appellants
requested the District Collector to cancel the aforementioned
resumption. As the District Collector failed to respond to the said
representation, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 04.01.1996 under
Section 80 CPC to the District Collector, intimating that a suit would
be instituted against the State if the Subject Land was not reconveyed
back to the appellants.
12. The appellants ultimately instituted an original Suit being O.S. No.
115 of 1996 before the Trial Court, praying for a declaration of their
title to the Subject Land and for an order directing the respondents
to deliver the possession to them.
13. The respondents in their written statement took the stance that the
Subject Land was an arable waste land owned by the Government.
The respondents had no knowledge of the events occurring from
the time when Harijana Govindu mortgaged the land till when the
land was conveyed by Kuruva Ramanna to the deceased father of
the appellant no.1 and the respondents denied that the appellants
were in possession of the subject land after the death of father of
appellant no.1.
14. According to the respondents, the subject land by virtue of being an
assigned government land was subject to certain conditions; one of
those being that the Government at any time may resume the land
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1021
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
wholly or in part, if it was of the opinion that the land is required
for any public purpose. In light of the same, it was contended that
Harijana Govindu did not possess any alienable rights at any point in
time and therefore, could not have further alienated the Subject Land.
15. According to the respondents, the Subject Land was resumed
by the Mandal Revenue, Kurnool in the resumption proceedings
No. R.C.C 184/89 dated 03.02.1989 and in addition to the same, the
Mandal Officer also resumed various other parcels of land, as the
said lands were situated at a hill slope with red gravel. Thus, they
were unfit for any sort of cultivation.
16. According to the respondents upon requisition from the District
Educational Officer, Kurnool for the construction of a DIET Building,
the Mandal Revenue Officer, together with the Mandal Surveyor and
Revenue Inspector, inspected the lands and found them suitable
for such construction. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Records were
prepared and scrutinized by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Kurnool
whereby the said lands were classified as arable waste lands.
17. Pursuant to the resumption proceedings, a notice was published in
the village as part of the procedure to invite objections, if any, against
the transfer of the subject land in favor of the Education Department.
As no objections were received within the time period stipulated, the
Gramapanchayat of Dinnedevarapadu gave its consent for transfer
of the said lands in favour of the Education Department. Thereafter,
on 01.05.1989, the possession of the land was handed over to the
District Educational Officer, Kurnool for the purpose of constructing
the DIET Building.
18. According to the respondents, in the year 1995, the Education
Department commenced the construction of the DIET Buildings on
a portion of the resumed land. According to the respondents, the
resumption of the land was effected bona fide for a public purpose
and in strict compliance with the Rules framed under the Board
Standing Order No. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue
Standing Orders and other provisions. The action of the government
in resuming the lands cannot be termed as a high-handed action
and the appellants have no right, title, or interest in the land.
19. According to the respondents, the suit was otherwise also barred
by limitation. The possession of the Subject Land was transferred to
the District Collector in 1989, whereas the suit came to be instituted
1022
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in 1996, i.e., beyond the prescribed period of limitation as per the
Limitation Act, 1963.
20. We must try to understand the exact case of the appellants as
pleaded in the plaint. The relevant pleadings in the plaint read thus:
"3. The plaintiffs are the owners of plaint schedule land.
Then plaint schedule land originally belonged to one
Harijana Govindu, resident of Dinne Devarapadu. The said
Govindu mortgaged the plaint schedule land for Rs. 100 in
favour of one Perugu Swamy Reddy of Dinne Devarapadu
under a mortgage deed dated 6.6.1943 the mortgage was
not redeemed during the life time of Govindu and Perugu
Swamy Reddy. Therefore Perugu Swamy Reddy's sons
filed a suit O.S. 178/67 in District Munsif's court, Kurnool.
For recovery of mortgage money against the sons of
Govindu and accordingly a decree was passed for sale
of the mortgaged property i.e. the plaint schedule land. In
pursuance of the said decree E.P. was filed for sale of the
plaintiff schedule land and recover the decretal amount. In
the court auction held on 22.4.70, one Kuruva Ramanna
of Dinne Devarapadu purchased the plaint schedule land
for Rs. 600 and took delivery of the land through process
of court on 9.10.70 and the delivery was recorded by
court on 6.11.70.
4. The court auction purchaser, Kuruva Ramanna, in turn
sold the plaint; schedule land for Rs. 600 to 1st plaintiffs
father, Yerikala Rosanna, under a registered sale deed
dated 10.12.70. The 1st plaintiffs father was in possession
and enjoyment of plaint schedule land till his death in the
year 1986. A ryotwari patta pass book was issued to 1st
plaintiffs father for the plaint schedule land and others S.
nos. in his possession and enjoyment. On the death of his
father, the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of
plaint schedule land without obstruction from any quarter.
5. The defendant has no manner of right, title or possession
to the plaint schedule land. From the beginning the plaint
schedule land is in the hands of private individuals and
at no time it was in possession of Government. Last year
the defendant took possession of a portion plaint schedule
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1023
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
land for the purpose of constructing a building for District
Institute of Educational Training Centre (DIET) without
issuing any notice to the plaintiff and without paying any
compensation to the plaintiff. The area so occupied by
Government will be about 34 cents and the plaintiff is
cultivating the balance extent in the plaint schedule land.
6. The Government has taken possession of plaint schedule
land from the plaintiffs on the false and mischievous plea
that the plaint schedule land is an assigned land and that
the Government is at liberty to resume their assigned land
at any time for public purpose. This stand of Government
is utterly false. The plaint schedule land is a patta land
from the days of yore and it is not an assigned land to
anybody. The 1st plaintiff gave a representation to the
Dist. Collector, Kunrool on 23.1.96 stating all the true
facts about plaint schedule land and requested the District
Collector, Kurnool, to reconvey the plaint schedule land
to the petitioner. But the District Collector Kurnool did not
redress the grievance of plaintiff. Therefore the 1st plaintiff
ultimately gave a notice to the Dist. Collector, Kurnool,
under Section 80 C.P.C. on 4.1.96 informing the District
Collector that a suit will be filed against the State for its
high handed action if the District Collector does not cancel
the so called resumption of plaint schedule land or pay the
compensation to the plaintiff at the rate of one lakh rupees
per acre. The District Collector, Kurnool received the said
notice on 8.1. 96 but did not comply with the demand of
the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff files this suit for declaration
of plaintiff's title to the plaint schedule and for recovery of
possession of plaint schedule land from the defendant.
7. The cause of action arose in September, 95 when the
defendant took over the plaint schedule land high handed
by for construction of District Institute of Educational
Training Centre. (DIET) and subsequent dates when the
plaintiff demanded reconveyance of plaint schedule land
to the plaintiff and the defendant refused to comply with
the demand of plaintiff."
(Emphasis supplied)
1024
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
21. In para 11, the appellants prayed as under:
"11. The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to declare plaintiffs title to the plaint schedule
land, direct the defendants to deliver back the possession
of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff, award costs and
grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper under the circumstance of the case."
22. To the aforesaid, the respondents herein filed their written statement
stating as under:
"3. The allegations in para 3 of the plaint that the
plaintiffs are the owner of the suit schedule land, and
it originally belonged to Harijana Govindu, and the said
Govindu mortgage and land to Perugu Swamy Reddy of
Dinnedevarapadu Village, under a mortgage deed dated
6.6.1943, and that Perugu Swamy Reddy filed O.S. No.
178/67 in D.M.C. Kurnool for recovery of the mortgage
debt and that one Kuruva Ramana purchased the. said
land in Court Auction for realization of the decree in O.S.
No. 178/1967 on 22.4.1970 and delivery was effected in
favour of Kuruva Ramana on 6.11.1970 are all not known
to this defendant and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all
the said allegations. Likewise the further allegations that
Kuruva Ramana sold the plaint schedule land to Yerikala
Rosanna under a registered sale deed dtd. 10.12.1970
and that plaintiffs father was in possession and enjoyment
of the said land till his death in the year 1986 are also
not within the knowledge of this defendant. The further
allegations that on the death of his father, the plaintiff
is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land without
obstructions from any quarter are all false and incorrect
statements made for the purpose of the suit.
4. The contention of the plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint that
the defendant has no manner of right title or possession to
the plaint schedule land and that from the beginning the
suit land is in the hands of private persons and at no time
it was in possession of Government are all not true and
correct. The further allegations that the suit schedule land
is a patta land and it is not an assigned land to anybody
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1025
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
is also an utterly false statement created for the purpose
of the suit.
5. This defendant humbly submits that the land in S.No.
451/1 extent Ac. 3.34 cents situated in Dinnedevarapadu
Village was originally arable waste land belonging to the
Government. The said land was assigned to Harijana
Govindanna subject to certain conditions and one among
them is that the Government may resume the land wholly
or in part if in the opinion of the Government the land is
required for any public purpose. The said Govindanna
has no alienable rights in the land assigned to him. The
suit schedule land was resumed to Government by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool in his proceedings No.
R.C.B. 184/89 dated 3.2.1989.
6. The following lands are situated within the
Dinnedevarapadu village limits near B. Tandrapadu village
and are classified as Arable Waste lands.
S. No. 449/1
Extent Ac. 1.48
449/2
0.95
449/3
3.03
449/4
3.00
451/1
3.34
451/3
1.41
451/4
0.70
Total
13.91 cents
The entire lands were on hill slope with red gravel. These
lands are unfit for cultivation.
7. It is further submitted that on the requisition of District
Educational Officer, Kurnool for transfer of the above
lands including the plaint schedule land for the purpose
of construction of District Institution of Education and
Training Centre Buildings, the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Kurnool along with Mandal Surveyor and Revenue
1026
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Inspector, inspected the above lands and found that the
said lands are suitable for the construction of DIET Centre.
Thereupon the Sub-Divisional Records for the above lands
have been got prepared and it has been got scrutinized
by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Kurnool. According
to the Village accounts the said lands are classified as
Arable Waste lands. A notice has been got published in
the village inviting objections if any against the transfer
of the land in favour of Education Department. The time
allowed for objections was expired by 31.10.1990, and
no objections have been received from the public. The
said lands are in Dinnedevarapadu Gran1a Panchayat
limits. The Grama Panchayat also has given its consent
for transfer of the above land in favour of the Education
Department. It is further submitted that these lands are
vacant lands and are free from any encroachments, and
the said land is quiet suitable for construction of DIET
buildings. Thereupon the land was given possession to
the District Educational Officer, Kurnool on 1.5.1989 by
the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool in strict conformity
with the rules and regulations prescribed under Law.
Subsequently the said land was transferred in favour
of District Educational Officer, Kurnool for construction
of DIET buildings. During the year 1995 the Education
Department started construction of DIET Centre buildings
in a portion of the plaint schedule land. The action of the
Government in resuming the assigned and required bona
fide for a public purpose cannot be termed as a high handed
action. The entire process was made in accordance with
the Rules framed under the Board standing orders and
other relevant provisions of law. The allegations contra
are denied as false.
8. This defendant submits that the plaintiff has no right,
title, interest and possession of the plaint schedule land.
Therefore the question of declaration of his title or delivery
of possession to the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff
has misconceived his remedy if any.
9. In any event the suit is barred by limitation. Issue of
notice will not save limitation. The land was required to
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1027
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
the Government in the year 1989. Therefore, the suit filed
in the year 1996 is clearly barred by time."
(Emphasis supplied)
i.
Trial Court's Judgment
23. The Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment
of the suit land without obstruction from any quarter from
the date of his father?
2. Whether the defendants have no manner of right or
title for the possession of the plaint schedule property?
3. Whether the suit land is assigned land and Govindanna
has no alienable rights for said assigned lands?
4. Whether the suit was resumed to Govt. by M.R.O.,
Kurnool with the proceedings No. R.C.B. 184/89, dt. 3-21989?
5. Whether the suit land was given in possession of District
Educational Officer on 1-5-89 by M.R.O., Kurnool?
6. Whether the plaintiff has no right or interest or possession
of the plaint schedule right?
7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
9. To what relief?
10. The issues 1, 2, 3 and 6 are recasted as follows:
"Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule
property and if so, 'they are entitled for declaration and
recovery of possession as prayed for in respect of the suit
schedule property"?
24. The findings recorded by the Trial Court in its Judgment and Decree
dated 05.08.1999 can be understood in two parts: -
a.
First, the Trial Court held that the resumption proceedings
conducted by the Mandal Officer was tainted with serious
1028
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
procedural irregularities. The respondents had failed to adduce
any credible evidence to establish that the Mandal Revenue
Officer had conducted any enquiry before resuming the Subject
Land & handing it over to the District Educational Officer, Kurnool.
It was held that mere bald assertions in the oral evidence of DW1,
Mandal Revenue Officer, would not be sufficient to establish
that the resumption of the Subject Land was in accordance with
law. Moreover, when the appellants challenged the resumption
proceedings, the authorities had failed to produce any relevant
records to establish that they had followed proper procedure
for the purpose of resumption of the land. Therefore, the Trial
Court had drawn an adverse inference against the evidence
of the DW1, Mandal Revenue Officer.
b.
Secondly, the issuance of the pattadar passbook duly signed
by the then Tahsildar in favour of the appellants combined with
the land revenue receipts was held to serve as clear indicators
of the actual possession and enjoyment of the Subject Land by
the appellants. Furthermore, the Trial Court observed that the
oral testimony of PW1 was duly corroborated by documentary
evidence. This was considered to have sufficiently established
the appellants' title and possession to the Subject Land, thereby
entitling them to recover possession of the same.
25. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the appellants
declaring them to be the lawful owners of the subject land and directed
the respondents to deliver the possession of the subject land back
to the appellants and observed as under:
"21. As seen from ex. All proceedings from District Revenue
Officer, Kurnool dt. 31-5-1996 indicating that the first
plaintiff issued Ex.A8 Section 80 C.P.C. notice dt. 4-1-1996
and the District Revenue officer requested the Mandal
Revenue Officer to send resumption records without any
delay. Further as seen Ex.A12 dt. 6-5-1996 proceedings
from District Revenue Officer, Kurnool indicating that
D.R.O. Kurnool address Ex. A12 to M.R.O., Kurnool to
send resumption records pertaining to the suit schedule
property. As regard Ex. A7, Ex.A8 and Exs.A10 to A12
indicates that the first plaintiff sent petitions to the higher
revenue authorities and also issued notices to them to
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
1029
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
enquire into the matter. Absolutely, there is no material on
record that what action was taken by the District Revenue
Authorities on the petitions and notices issued by the first
plaintiff. Even today, this Court did not see the light of the
day with regard to the alleged resumption proceedings
of suit schedule property in R.C.B. 184/89 dt.