A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dept. of Revenue & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025, raises whether appellants who trace title by purchase and long possession could sustain a declaratory title and possession remedy against the State which asserted the land to be an assigned government land subject to resumption.

The trial court accepted documentary and oral proof notably a registered sale deed (10.12.1970), continuous possession from 1970, issuance of a pattadar passbook and years of revenue receipts and decreed title and possession for the plaintiffs. The High Court reversed, treating the property as an assigned land and holding that assignment conditions (including Government’s right of resumption) prevent transferees and successors from acquiring superior title.

The Supreme Court re-examined:

(i) the evidentiary weight of a pattadar passbook under the Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971,

(ii) the operation of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977,

(iii) the statutory presumption created by s.113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and

(iv) the purpose and exigencies of s.80 CPC notice practice.

The Court concluded that appellants had established possession and pattadar rights; the State failed to prove a subsisting title or lawful resumption; and, as practical justice, ordered compensation rather than demolition of long-standing public constructions.

Keywords: pattadar passbook, assigned lands, resumption, s.113 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, s.80 CPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute concerns approx. 3.34 acres, Survey No. 451/1 in Dinnedevarapadu Mandal, Kurnool District. The plaintiffs’ chain begins with mortgage in 1943, court auction in 1970, purchase by Kuruva Ramanna and registered sale to Yerikala Rosanna on 10.12.1970. The family paid land revenue, received a pattadar passbook, and occupied the land until the State purportedly resumed it in 1989 under resumption proceedings R.C.B. 184/89 and handed it to the Education Department (possession recorded 01.05.1989).

Construction of a DIET building began in 1995; plaintiffs alleged illegal dispossession without notice or compensation and filed suit in 1996 seeking declaration and delivery of possession. The trial court accepted plaintiffs’ documentary proof (sale certificate, sale deed, pattadar passbook, revenue receipts) and their oral testimony, drew adverse inferences against the Mandal Revenue Officer for lack of records, and decreed title and possession.

The High Court, relying on authorities about assigned lands (Full Bench in Dharma Reddy and decisions like Chittoor District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. C. Rajamma), treated the land as an assigned land subject to non-alienation/resumption and reversed.

The Supreme Court was called upon to reconcile evidentiary presumptions (possession vs. Government title), statutory frameworks governing pattas and assignments, and appropriate equitable relief where long-standing public structures exist.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The essential factual matrix is compact and focused on chronology and documentary indicia. Harijana Govindu mortgaged the land (1943); mortgage sale decree led to court auction (22.4.1970) purchased by K. Ramanna who conveyed by registered sale deed to the appellant’s father on 10.12.1970; delivery of possession by court is recorded; thereafter the family was in uninterrupted possession; a pattadar passbook (Ex.A3) and revenue receipts (Ex.A4–A6) were issued and paid; appellants belong to a Scheduled Tribe and had no other land; resumption proceedings allegedly initiated and concluded in 1989 and possession handed over to the District Education Officer 01.05.1989; active construction occurred in 1995; plaintiffs issued s.80 CPC notice (04.01.1996) and thereafter filed suit (O.S. No. 115 of 1996).

The State’s answer asserted origin as arable waste/assigned land, claimed compliance with Board Standing Orders and resumption procedure, and pleaded limitation. Crucially the State did not place before the trial court the D-Form assignment or the resumption file; Mandal officer testified but records of resumption were not produced at trial.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether appellants who were in continuous possession since 1970 and held a pattadar passbook can be declared owners against the State claiming the land was an assigned government land?
ii. Whether the State discharged its burden to prove a subsisting title and lawful resumption of the land?
iii. What is the evidentiary weight of a pattadar passbook and land revenue receipts under the 1971 Act and s.113 BSA?
iv. How should courts treat suits for declaration of title against the Government (period of possession, presumptions, and burden)?
v. What reliefs are appropriate where State structures exist on resumed land — restitution or compensation?
vi. What role and effect should the s.80 CPC notice and the State’s failure to meaningfully respond play in adjudication?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellants contended that their case rests on unimpeached documentary chain: court sale certificate, registered sale deed (10.12.1970), pattadar passbook (Ex.A3), and revenue receipts (Ex.A4–A6). They emphasized continuous, peaceful possession; absence of any Government objection for decades; failure of State to produce the purported D-Form patta or credible resumption proceedings at trial; the State’s statutory notice obligations under s.80 CPC were not meaningfully discharged; and that doctrine and precedents permit protection of pattadar rights where Government fails to prove resumption. They relied on s.113 BSA (possession prima facie proof) and authorities that a revenue record/pattadar entry raises strong presumptions of right.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State maintained that the suit land was an assigned land assigned to Govindu and therefore alienation was subject to conditions including Government’s right of resumption; the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted resumption proceedings R.C.B. 184/89 and handed over possession for DIET construction; the assignee had only a defeasible/license-like interest and transferees cannot claim superior title; binding High Court precedents (including Full Bench Dharma Reddy) supported resumption and prohibition of alienation; and the suit was barred by limitation since possession passed to the Collector in 1989 and suit filed only in 1996. The State also argued plaintiffs did not independently prove the terms of assignment or date/conditions.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court carefully analysed statutory schemes and evidence. On the 1971 Act, the Court held that recording of right followed by issuance of a pattadar passbook raises a presumption in favour of the passbook holder and records rights in land; while not conclusive, such entries carry strong evidentiary force, especially when corroborated by revenue receipts and long possession.

The Court emphasized that an even-more significant statutory presumption arises under s.113 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which casts on the party denying ownership (here the State) the burden to prove that the possessor is not the owner. The Court stressed that s.113 applies equally against the Government and is attracted where possession is prima facie lawful.

The State failed to produce the D-Form patta and the resumption file at trial; mere oral assertions by Mandal officer without records could not discharge the onus. The trial court’s adverse inference against the revenue witness for non-production was appropriate.

The Court distinguished the High Court Full Bench line on retrospective operation and non-alienation, observing that those authorities do not absolve the State from proving a subsisting title when possession and instrumental documents point decisively to private ownership.

The Court reiterated the special caution courts must exercise in title suits against the Government: while the Government enjoys a presumption of ownership for unoccupied lands and the plaintiff must ordinarily establish long possession (noting Article 112 / Limitation distinctions), where the plaintiff produces cogent chain of possession and revenue documentation, the onus to prove Government ownership is on the State. Regarding s.80 CPC, the Court underscored the practical purpose: to invite administrative resolution; public authorities must take statutory notices seriously and the State’s failure to acknowledge or act can invite adverse inference.

Finally, noting the pragmatic impossibility and disproportionate hardship of ordering demolition of structures in place for decades, the Court directed monetary compensation Rs. 70 lakhs to the appellants while upholding their pattadar title and effectively setting aside the High Court’s order.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

Possession evidenced by an unbroken chain of documentary and oral proof (registered sale deed, pattadar passbook, revenue payments, continuous cultivation and enjoyment since 1970) attracts the statutory presumption under s.113 BSA and places on the State the burden of proving a subsisting title and valid procedural resumption.

Where the State fails to produce the assignment instrument or resumption records and does not properly respond to s.80 notice, courts should draw adverse inferences; and practical equity (compensation) is appropriate where long-standing public construction makes restitution impossible.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court commented on proper administrative practice: Board Standing Orders and revenue authorities must maintain resumption records and respond to notices. It criticized routine formalism in s.80 practice. The Court also observed that revenue records are not per se conclusive of title but are strong evidential indicia when supported by possession.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. In declaratory suits against the State plaintiffs must ordinarily show longer possession (recognising Article 112/limitation), but s.113 BSA may shift onus where possession and passbook evidence is strong.

2. Revenue authorities must preserve and produce resumption files and assignment instruments when claiming State title; absence permits adverse inference.

3. s.80 CPC notices must be acknowledged and meaningfully acted upon by public authorities; courts may treat silence as an afterthought.

4. Where restitution would cause disproportionate hardship (long-standing public infrastructure), courts should prefer compensation reflecting market and equitable considerations rather than demolition.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree in substance: appellants possess pattadars’ title to the suit land, the State failed to prove a subsisting title or lawful resumption, and the appellants are entitled to compensation because physical restitution would be impracticable.

The judgment re-calibrates the evidentiary balance in title suits against the State: statutory presumptions of possession (now codified in s.113 BSA) have teeth; administrative laxity and failure to produce pertinent revenue/resumption records can and should be penalized judicially; and courts should marry legal principle with pragmatic relief (monetary compensation) when long-standing public works exist.

The decision reinforces the protective value of pattadar records while preserving the State’s power to resume land where it proves procedural and substantive entitlement but it requires the State to actually prove that entitlement at trial rather than rely on ipse dixit. This judgment will be instructive for litigants and revenue authorities in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere on the interplay between assigned lands jurisprudence and documentary/possessional presumptions.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka, Revenue Department, (2010) 5 SCC 203.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319.
3. Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan & Ors., (1987) 1 APLJ 171.
4. Chittoor District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. C. Rajamma, (1996) 2 ALT 526.
5. M. Krishna Aiyar v. The Secretary of State for India, I.L.R. 33 Mad. 173 (1910).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971;
2. Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977;
3. Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (s.113);
4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (s.80);
5. Limitation Act, 1963.