Court Holds State Failed To Prove Assigned Land; Orders Rs.70 Lakh Compensation To Long‑standing Pattadars

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard an appeal arising from a 2014 High Court judgment which had set aside a trial court decree in a title and possession suit concerning a 3.34‑acre parcel in Dinnedevarapadu Mandal, Kurnool District. The appeal raised whether the land was government‑assigned (and therefore resumable) or a pattadar/privately held property acquired by the plaintiffs’ predecessor by a 1970 registered sale deed, and whether the State complied with statutory procedure and notice requirements before resumption.

Decision Summary The Supreme Court held that the State failed to prove any subsisting superior title to the subject land and that the appellants, who produced a registered sale deed (10.12.1970), a pattadar passbook and revenue receipts, had established long possession which cast the burden on the State to rebut ownership. The Court found it impracticable to restore physical possession because public buildings stood on the land, and therefore directed monetary compensation. The Court emphasised that conditions in a patta which deprive assignees of full compensation are constitutionally impermissible and that assignees are entitled to compensation on par with full owners.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.”

Background The dispute concerned Survey No. 451/1 (about 3.34 acres). The appellants pleaded title from a 1970 registered sale deed by which their predecessor purchased the land after a court auction pursuant to a 1967 mortgage decree. Pattadar passbook entries (Ex.A3) and land revenue receipts (Exs. A4–A6) were produced; the family remained in possession until the State purportedly resumed the land in 1989 and handed it to the Education Department for construction of a DIET building, with a reported physical transfer on 01.05.1989 and building activity by 1995. The plaintiffs issued a Section 80 CPC notice in 1996 and instituted O.S. No.115 of 1996 seeking declaration and possession. The trial court found procedural defects in the resumption and accepted the pattadar evidence, decreeing title and possession for the plaintiffs. The High Court allowed the first appeal, treated the land as assigned and resumable under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Full Bench precedent, and set aside the decree.

On appeal to this Court the State failed to produce the alleged D‑Form patta or contemporaneous assignment records; the Mandal Revenue Officer’s evidence admitted lack of documentary proof on crucial points and acknowledged issuance of the appellants’ passbook and revenue receipts. Applying the statutory presumption attaching to passbooks and the principle that possession raises a prima facie presumption of ownership (Section 113, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), the Court held the State did not rebut the appellants’ title. Noting impracticability of physical restitution after decades of public use, the Court held the assignees were entitled to compensation equivalent to market value; observing also that public authorities should heed Section 80 notices, the Court directed payment of Rs. 70,00,000 to the appellants within three months and ordered circulation of the judgment to High Courts and Chief Secretaries.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4311 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 3324 OF 2015); Reported as 2025 INSC 383 Case Title: Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata (Advocate) for the appellants For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh (Advocate) for the State/Respondents

Disposition: Appeal disposed with direction that respondents pay Rs.70,00,000 to appellants within three months; circulation of judgment to High Courts and Chief Secretaries.