YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1011, 2025 INSC 383

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025 [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 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 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 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; 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; 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 * Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment. 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 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. " 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 3-2- 1989? 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 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 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. 28-2-1989. Absolutely, there is no evidence when Mandal Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and resumed the suit land and handed over possession of suit land to District Educational officer, Kurnool. The mere statement of DW1, Mandal Revenue Officer is not sufficient to prove that he has followed proper procedure and resumed the suit land. When the plaintiffs challenging the resumption proceedings itself as no enquiry was conducted and no notice was served on them, it is for the Government to produce such resumption proceedings in R. C. B. 184/89, dt.

3-2-89 to prove that they have followed proper procedure in resumption of the suit land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, absolutely there is no material before this court to know whether the Mandal Revenue Officer adopted proper procedure or conducted any enquiry at the time of resumption of suit land. The evidence of DW1 is not sufficient to establish that the resumption of suit land is legal and proper without produce any relevant records. Nothing prevented the revenue authorities to produce the resumption proceedings of the suit land before this court. Therefore, inference can be drawn that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool has not adopted procedure in resumption of suit land. In the absence of resumption proceedings of the suit land, the court cannot accept the evidence of DW1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool with regard to resuming of the suit land.

Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool has not adopted proper procedure while resuming the suit land and possession given to Education Officer cannot be said legal. 22. The learned Asst. Government Pleader pointed that the Mandal Revenue Officer resumed the suit schedule land for public purpose as the suit land is an assigned land. 1030 It is true that there are some conditions in D. Form patta that the Government may take the assigned lands if it is required for the public purpose. But, in this case, the facts are different. The plaintiffs belong to Yerikala Community (Schedule Tribe). It is also the case of plaintiff that except the suit land, they have no other land of their own. They purchased the suit schedule land under a registered sale deed in the year 1970 DW1 admitted in his cross- examination that they have issued Ex. A3 patta pass book in respect of suit schedule land and also Ex. A4 to Ex.

A6 land revenue receipts for having paid the land revenue by the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property. If really, the plaintiffs family is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, there is no need to issue Ex. A3 patta pass book to the plaintiffs and also receive land revenue from the plaintiffs. Learned Asst. Govt. pleader argued that buildings were raised in the suit property. Even structures raised in the suit property, it has no significance to the circumstances of present case. 23. DW1 Mandal Revenue officer on one hand he admits having issued Ex. A3 patta pass book and Ex. A4 to A6 land revenue receipts and on the other hand, denies the plaintiff peaceful possession in respect of the suit schedule property. It is not the case of defendant that they have not issued Ex. A3 to A6 patta pass book and land revenue receipts.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no proof when Government resuming the suit land and is handed over possession to Educational Officer, Kurnool. Therefore I have to answer issues 4 and 5 against defendant and in favour of plaintiffs. Further, there is no material on record to show that the Mandal Revenue officer has adopted proper procedure while resuming the suit land. Therefore, the resumption of suit land can be said as improper and illegal. 24. RECASTED ISSUE FRAMED ON 30-7-1999: On this issue, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that they are the owners of suit schedule property and they Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. are entitled for declaration and also relief of recovery of possession. 25. Coming to the evidence of Second Plaintiff as PW1 that the suit schedule land originally belongs to one Madiga Govindu of her village.

The said Govindu mortgaged the suit schedule land to Perugu Swamy Reddy. As the Govindu did not pay the mortgage amount, the Swamy Reddy filed a suit against the Govindu, the said suit was decreed. One Kuruva Ramanna purchased the suit schedule property in court auction and took possession of the same through court. Ex. A1 is registration extract of sale certificate in E. P. 51/59 in O. S. 178/67 for having purchased the suit schedule property by Kuruva Ramanna in court auction. 26. Further, according to PW1, Rosanna the father of first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under the original of Ex. A2 dt. 10-12-1970. Considering the possession and enjoyment, the Government also issued patta pass book in favour of her father-in-law. Ex. A3 is such pass book. They have been paying the land revenue to the suit schedule land. Ex. A4 to Ex. A6 are such receipts.

Further, according to PW1, the suit schedule property is an agricultural land and they are raising crops in the suit schedule property. The Government took the possession of suit schedule property for constructing the school without their consent. First plaintiff her husband also sent Ex. A7 petition to District Collector, Kurnool. The District Collector, Kurnool did not act on Ex. A7. Thereafter notice under Section 80 C. P. C. issued. Ex. A8 is such notice at 4-1-1996. Ex. A9 is served acknowledgments relating to Ex. A8 Sec. 80 C. P. C. notice. The District Collector, Kurnool issued reply notices which are Ex. A10 to Ex. A12. 27. Further, according to plaintiffs that they belong to Yerikala community which is a schedule tribe caste. The Mandal Revenue Officer has issued Ex. A13 caste certificate to that effect. They were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit land is not assigned land.

Hence, to declare their rights in respect of the suit schedule land and also deliver the same. 1032 28. In the cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that they have no way connected or related to the suit schedule property. PW1 further denied the suggestion that they never raised any crop in the suit schedule property. PW1 further denied the suggestion that they are neither the owners nor possessors of the suit schedule property. As seen from Ex. A1 registration extract of sale certificate would go to show that the legal representatives of Perugu Swamy Reddy filed suit in O. S. 178/67 against the legal representatives of Govindu and others to pass a preliminary decree, in respect of suit schedule property. In the auction, one Kuruva Ramanna purchased the schedule property for Rs. 600/- being the highest auction purchaser. So, as seen from Ex.

A1, sale certificate issued by the competent Civil Court, that Kuruva Ramanna purchased the suit schedule property in court auction being the highest bidder. 29. Further as seen Ex. A2 registration extract sale deed dt. 10-12-1970, it discloses that Rosanna, the father of first plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property for Rs. 600/- from Ramanna. It is also evident that considering the possession and enjoyment of Yerikala Rosanna, the father of first plaintiff, the Government issued Ex. A3 patta pass book in respect of the suit schedule property. As seen from Ex. A4 to Ex. A6, the plaintiffs family have paid necessary land revenue to the suit schedule property. It is also evident that the first plaintiff sent petitions to the District Revenue authorities for taking possession of his property by Mandal Revenue officer, Kurnool which is evident under Ex. A7, Ex. A8, Ex. A10 to Ex. A12.

It is clear that the District Revenue authorities did not act on the notices given by the plaintiff to enquire the dispute with regard to suit schedule property. The District Revenue authorities did not take any action, there after the first plaintiff has issued Ex. A8 Section 80 C. P. C. statutory notice and filed present suit for the reliefs as stated above. 30. It is the case of plaintiffs that they belong to Yerikala community (schedule tribe) they do not possess any other land except the suit schedule property. The Mandal Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. Revenue Officer, Kurnool did not issue any notices nor enquired at the time of resumption of land. 31. It is the case of defendant that the plaintiffs are strangers to the suit schedule property. The Govindu original assignee has no right to alienate the suit schedule property to anybody. The plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

If really, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the question of issuing Ex. A3 patta pass book duly signed by then Tahsildar and village Karnam to Rosanna, the father of first plaintiff does not arise. If the plaintiffs family were not in possession of the suit property, the question of taking any land revenue with them under Ex. A4 to Ex. A6 does not arise. If we correlate, the evidence of PW1, coupled with Ex. A1 to Ex. A6, it would clinchingly and conclusively establish that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. 32. Having considered the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs family, the Government has issued Ex. A3 patta pass book and also received land revenue under Ex. A4 to Ex. A6. One thing is certain that the Mandal Revenue Officer has not adopted proper procedure while resuming the suit schedule land.

The Mandal Revenue officer should have allotted some other land to the plaintiffs in view of suit property or to pay some compensation to them for resuming the land as the plaintiffs belong to Yerikala caste which is a schedule tribe community. 33. In the instant case, the plaintiff have not only marked Ex. A1 to Ex. A6, but also examined second plaintiff as PW1 to prove their title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property, certainly they are entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule property. The issue is, answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. " (Emphasis supplied) 1034 B. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT 26. Aggrieved by the judgment & decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondents preferred an Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh being in AS No. 1931 of 2002. 27.

Before the High Court, the respondents submitted that the suit land, having been assigned to Harijana Govindanna, by its very nature was a government assigned land, and thereby any attempt to alienate it was consequently invalid. It was argued that due process of law was followed to resume the land. The record clearly indicated that the Mandal Revenue Officer at Kurnool, acting under proceedings No. Rc. B. No. 184/89 dated 03. 02. 1989, resumed possession and subsequently on 01. 05. 1989, transferred the land to the District Educational Officer in strict compliance with the statutory requirements. 28. It was further submitted that the fact as stated above established that the appellant and their predecessors had no right, title or authority to convey any interest in the Subject Land. While contending so, the respondents placed strong reliance on the following decisions: (i) Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 APLJ 171. (ii) Chittoor District Co-op.

Milk Producers Union Ltd. , Milk Products Factory v. C. Rajamma. reported in (1996) 2 ALT 526. 29. The appellants herein, while opposing the appeal, before the High Court placed strong reliance on the decision in K. M. Kamallula Basha v. District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor reported in (2009) 3 ALD 385. 30. The High Court framed the following point for its determination: "1. Whether the Plaintiff got no right and title over the property and the Defendant/Appellant got right of resumption of land in claiming as assigned land for the public purpose and if so, the Trial Court's decree and judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs impugned in the appeal by the Defendant/Appellant is unsustainable, so also on the ground of maintainability? " 31. The High Court allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the judgment & decree of the Trial Court on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish their title over the Subject Land and further that they had Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr.

v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. failed to produce any valid documents to counter the respondent's case that the subject land was a government-assigned land. 32. The High Court relying on the decision in K. M. Kamallula Basha(supra) took the view that if a D-Form patta contains a condition permitting the Government to resume an assigned land for a public purpose, such as the establishment of a milk-processing plant by a cooperative society, such condition remains binding irrespective of the duration of possession by the assignee or those claiming through them. The Court noted that in cases of assigned lands, the proprietary rights remain with the Government, and as such, no assignee can claim a title beyond what is expressly stipulated in the conditions of assignment. It was further observed that an assignee cannot lawfully transfer an assigned land, and consequently, no transferee can claim a better title than the assignee. 33.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the assignee, being in permissive possession by virtue of the assignment, and any alienee deriving title from such possession, whether through voluntary or involuntary alienation, cannot obtain a title superior to that which the original assignee and his legal representatives had. Even when the land is alienated through a court auction or by mortgage to a private individual who subsequently resells the property, the title acquired remains limited to the rights originally conferred by the assignment. 34. Few relevant observations made by the High Court in its impugned judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: "25. It is also deposed by D. W. 1 that the said Govindu, original assignee had no right to transfer or alienate to anybody. It was revealed in the cross examination of D. W. 1 that according to Board Standing Orders No. 15, pattas were issued with conditions in favour of the assignees. It is deposed that conditions are administrative in nature.

In fact, Board Standing Orders got statutory force as a subordinate legislation and when the original assignment by patta issued is subject to conditions and the B. S. O. No. 15 is not in dispute by plaintiffs including from D. W. 1 cross examination in favour of the original assignee, Govindu they have no right to dispute the enforceability of B. S. O. No. 15, more particularly, even in the suit. 1036 26. It is also brought in the cross examination that it is the Government land and after assigning the Government land, it is being called as patta land of the assignee. He deposed that he does not know whether individual notices were issued to the occupants before resumption and any personal enquiry was conducted. He deposed that no enquiry conducted under Section 3 of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (in brief 'the Act').

In fact, for resumption of land for public purpose, Section 3 of the Act has no direct application, as Section 3 reads, prohibition of any transfer is null and void and unless the transfer is to a landless poor, the land is to be resumed. Here, D. W. l deposed that there is a violation of the assignment conditions brought by D-Form patta by transfer also under Section 3 of the Act. He denied the suggestion that suit land assigned Govindu was on market value and thus the suit land is a patta land of Govindu. It is important to note here that it is a clear admission from the plaintiffs by said suggestion not even inadvertent one being unambiguous to bind the plaintiffs that the suit land is the Government assigned land, assigned to the original person Govindu i. e. , assignee. It is for the plaintiffs to establish therefrom that it was assigned for consideration or without right of resumption or Govindu got any absolute rights, which they did not prove.

He also denied the suggestion that they did not follow the correct procedure and manipulated the records and occupying the land from the possession of the plaintiffs. From the said suggestion also, they are indirectly saying that there is some procedure followed and as such it is for the plaintiffs to show how the procedure followed is not correct. There is no worth evidence in this regard, more particularly, from the evidence of P. W. 1/2nd plaintiff who is the only witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. In the reexamination, even D. W. 1 deposed that other assignees never raised any objection for resumption of the lands to construct the buildings of the Education Department. He did not disclose that fact, but for asked in the cross examination including the names of the other assignees. It is also crystal clear that suit land is part of the Government assigned land by Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.

D-Form patta in favour of the Harijana Govindu, way back in 1943, with right of resumption by the Government at any time and the assignee is like a licencee and not absolute owner and thus any length of possession does not confer any right, much less to set up any adverse possession. 27. From this background, coming to the legal position, in K. M. Kamallula Basha (supra) it was held that, under Section 3, there is a prohibition for transfer of the assigned land that was assigned prior to 1954, would not operate for assignments made two decades earlier thereto and the purchaser of assigned land acquires ownership rights by prescription, if he enjoys possession of said land for 30 years.

For the said conclusion in the writ petition referred but for relied upon Mandal Revenue Officer report suggesting for no objection certificate for registration in favour of the transferee of the assigned land that was since objected by the District Collector impugned in the writ petition in the Sub-Registrar insisted for no objection of the Government land for transfer from the Government. This decision no way dealt with the earlier precedents on the scope of the law including the provisions of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 28. The Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Dharma Reddy (supra), held that the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act (9 of 1977), Section 3(1) is retrospective in nature, which applies even to transfer of assigned land taking place prior to the Act came into force for resumption of the land to the original assignee by disbursing the transfer alienee unless the alienee is a landless poor.

Therefore, the expression in K. M. Kamalluia Basha (supra) that runs contrary to the Full Bench expression in Dharma Reddy (supra), cannot be outweighed. Apart from it, in the Full Bench expression it was observed that while answering a reference upholding the Division Bench expression of Dharma Reddy (supra) of retrospective operation by over ruling of earlier Division Bench expression of (1979) 1 ALT 79 of only prospective in operation while answering the said reference also by referring to the Apex Court's expression in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka, under the Karnataka 1038 S. C. & S. T.

Prohibition of transfer of certain lands Act 2 of 1979, the provisions of which are identical to the Act 7 of 1977 are similar analogy to rely on the probabilities that where the transferee acquires only a defeasible title liable to be defeated in accordance with law, avoidance of such defeasible title which still remains to be defeated in accordance with law at the date of commencement of the Act and recovery of possession of such granted land on the basis of provisions contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Act cannot be said to be constitutionally invalid and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionable, unjust and arbitrary. It was also observed that an assignee or transferee shall not get any indefeasible title over the assigned Land for prohibiting the resumption. 29. In Chittoor District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. , (supra) also it was held that in the D-Form patta when there was condition No.

17 for resumption of assigned land by the Government for public purpose without compensation where it is for establishing milk processing plan by a society, the same is permissible and assignee shall not have any right to property more than what is stipulated in the assignment conditions and that too in the case of assignment land the proprietary land remains with the Government and thereby Government can resume the land for public purpose at any time irrespective of duration of possession of land by assignee or those who inherited from the assignee or claiming through it was so held by setting aside the Single Judges order reported in Smt. C. Rajamma vs The District Collector, wherein the Division Bench observed at paras 8 and 9 to the conclusion that it is the well settled law that when on the one side there is 'public interest' and on the other side interest of an individual, the Court will protect the 'public interest and not the interest of an individual'.

Resumption of land, we have already noticed, is intended for a public purpose and thus the public interest is in favour of resumption of land. No assignee can get a right to transfer and in that no transferee can get a right. The document of assignment has incorporated a condition and that condition always Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. remained alive irrespective of the duration of possession of land by the assignee or those who inherited from the assignee. The principle of derivative title is not at all attracted in the case of an assignment because the proprietary right remains with the person who assigns and does not vest in the assignee. 30.

Having regard to the above, the assignee is for all purposes in permissive possession by virtue of the assignment, so also any alienee from the assignee, either from voluntary alienation or involuntary alienation, for its makes no difference and thereby this assigned land prohibited from alienation, alienated through court - auction pursuant to the alienation by mortgage to a private individual and who in turn brought the property to sale, the auction purchaser can get no better title than what the original assignee and his legal representatives got, so also the in turn alienee from the auction purchaser as well as the in turn alienee legal representatives or those claiming through.

As such, the Plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title over the property and they cannot even set up adverse possession against the Government from any length of possession even more than 30 years and they have no iota of right to oppose the resumption much less to seek for restoration of the land by the Government to them and the land having been taken possession and constructed buildings thereby the trial court went wrong. Accordingly, the Point No. 1 is answered. " (Emphasis supplied) C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS 35. We heard Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (original plaintiffs). Mr. Venkata urged that over and above the oral submissions made by him, the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants may also be taken into consideration. The written submissions read thus: "1. Petitioner has already filed its written synopsis of submission on 26. 12. 2021 along with a compilation of 1040 relevant statutes and judgments.

This Special Leave Petition was heard and reserved on 21. 01. 2025. In compliance of the order dated 21. 01. 2025, these written submissions are being filed in addition to the written synopsis of submission already filed. 2. In these submissions Reference to the judgments and statutes is from the 'Compilation for Final Hearing on behalf of Petitioners' already filed on behalf of Petitioners. 3. PETITIONER'S CASE: Petitioner is the Plaintiff in the subject suit from which the instant SLP arises. The suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession of subject land. In the suit, the Petitioner traced back their title to 1943, when the land was owned by one Mr. Govindu. Title pleaded and proved by the Petitioner is as follows: a) Mr.

Govindu had mortgaged the subject property (in 1943) b) After failure to pay the mortgage money, the subject property was foreclosed and sold in a Court auction after default (in July 1970) c) Petitioner's predecessor purchased the subject property from the Court auction purchaser vide a registered sale deed (in December 1970) d) Thereafter, the Petitioner's family had been in continuous enjoyment and possession of the subject property. e) Petitioner's predecessor was also issued a pattadar passbook under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 ("ROR Act") and paid land revenue on the subject land. 4. In 1995 for the first time, State (Respondent No. 1) illegally disposed the Petitioner, after which after following due process under Section 80 of CPC, the subject suit was filed for Declaration of title and recovery of possession. 5. RESPONDENT'S CASE: It was Respondent's case that the subject land is a government land assigned to Mr. Govindu.

Respondent claimed that the assignment Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. was made subject to the condition of non-alienation and the government can also resume the land. It was claimed that the subject land was resumed after following due process. Respondent did not file any documents in the Trial. As such no documents, whatsoever, were marked on behalf of the Respondent. 6. THE JUDGMENTS: The Trial Court decreed the suit in Petitioner's favour. The same was erroneously reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in a first appeal vide the Impugned Judgment. 7. The following are Petitioner's submissions: I. RESPONDENT'S DEFENCE BASED ON THE PLEA OF ASSIGNMENT IS MISCONCEIVED AND LEGALLY ERRONEOUS. 8. Firstly, except for a bald plea, Respondent had not filed a single document to demonstrate that the subject land was an assigned land. 9.

Even if the Respondent's stand on assignment is considered on demurrer, it is settled position of law in the State of Andhra Pradesh that the non-alienation clause was only introduced vide G. O. Ms. No. 1142 in 1954 and the assignments made prior thereto were freely alienable. 10. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, there are 3 distinct periods on the issue of assignments and non-alienation. PRIOR TO 1954: There was no condition of non-alienation. FROM 1954-177: Executive instructions in G. O. Ms. No. 1142 governed the assignments, which introduced the condition of non-alienation. POST 1977: The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ("Assignment Act") was enacted. Section 2(1) of the Act defines "assigned lands" and "assigned" as lands assigned to the "subject to the condition of non alienation". 11.

State authorities routinely try to illegally interfere in land ownerships of private parties, with long standing titles and 1042 possession - as in the present case - contending that the subject land was assigned. 12. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble High Court dealt with this issue categorially holding that the State cannot interfere in assignments made prior to 1954. • KM Kamallula Basha v. District Collector reported in 2009 SCCOnline AP 88. • G Satyanarana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 SCCOnline AP 334. • PV Rajendra Kumar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 SCCOnline AP 919. 13. It was also held in Satyanarana's case that the burden of proof lies on the State to demonstrate that the assignments contained a condition of non-alienation. 14. The Hon'ble High Court failed to consider the ratio in Kamallula Basha's case on the premise that the Assignments Act was held to be retrospectively applicable by a Full Bench judgment in Dharma Reddy v.

Sub Collector reported in 1986 SCC Online AP 141. 15. The Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that the ratio on retrospectivity in Dharma Reddy's case is based on the express wording of the Section 3. 16. If Section 3 is read with Section 2(1) of the Act, it is clear that the ratio in Dharma Reddy's case was meant to deal with situations between 1954 and 1977. In fact, if the eventual decision of the Single Judge of Dharma Reddy after reference is observed, this legal aspect becomes very clear. 17. But for this misreading of the Dharma Reddy's case, the Kamallula Basha's case and other judgments governing the filed are squarely applicable to the instant case, thus supporting the Petitioner's case ex facie. 18. For the first time in the Reply to the SLP, the Respondent took a new factual plea that the subject assignment was made in 1955. This is misconceived for the following reasons: Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.

• Such stand was never taken before the Trial Court or the High Court. Therefore, new factual pleas cannot be introduced in the Supreme Court. • The High Court itself held that the assignment in the present case was "way back in 1943". • The mortgage by the original owner Mr. Govindu was a registered mortgage in the year 1943 • The factum of mortgage in the year 1943 was also specifically pleaded in the Petitioner's plaint. In response thereto, in its Written Statement, the Respondent did not take any plea that the assignment was after 1954, much less a specific plea that the assignment was in the year 1955. PETITIONER'S TITLE IS LEGALLY SUPPORTED BY SECTION 6 OF THE ROR ACT 20. It has been the petitioner's plea that the subject land is a patta land and not an assigned land. The petitioner also filed the pattadar passbook issued under the ROR Act. 21.

Section 6 of the ROR Act categorially stipulates that the entries in record of rights maintained under the Act "shall be presumed to be true" until the contrary is proved. The presumption provided under Section 6 is not a factual presumption ('may presume') but a legal presumption ('shall presume') to be read with Section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 22. Respondent had not filed a single document to disprove the legal presumption to the reliefs claimed in the suit. " D. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 36. We heard Ms. Prerna Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Her written submissions read thus: "(i) The land measuring Sy. No. 451/1 measuring Ac 3. 34 in Dinnedevarapadu Village (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Land") was derived from Sy. No. 396 classified as Government Land (dotted land) in the land record/ Resettlement Register. The said land was assigned to 1044 one Harijan Govindu in NRC 519/1364 dt 12. 1. 1955 of the Affidavit dt 30. 12.

2021 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh). Such an assignment of land is subject to certain conditions, pertinently that such a right is heritable but non-alienable, and the assignee cannot transfer the land. (ii) On the requisition of the District Educational Officer, Kurnool for transfer of the subject land for the construction of the District Institute of Education & Training (DIET) building. A notice was issued in the village giving due chances for any objections, and the Gram Panchayat, Dinnedevarapadu also gave its consent. The Government took possession of the land vide proceedings No. Rc. C. 184/89 of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 03. 02. 1989 and the possession was given to the Education Department on 01. 05. 1989. The DIET building was constructed, and has been functioning since 1995. (iii) However, after the construction of the building, a Suit being OS No. 115/96 was filed before the Ld.

Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, wherein the present Petitioner was Plaintiff No. 2, praying for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the Subject Land. The Plaintiffs claimed their title to the land based on a sale deed dated 10. 12. 1970, by way of which the Plaintiffs' predecessor purchased the property from one Kuruva Ramanna, who had bought the subject property in a Court auction vide a Sale Certificate dated 01. 07. 1970. The said Court auction allegedly took place since the assignee Harijan Govindu had mortgaged the subject property, and thereafter his LRs had defaulted in the mortgage. Apart from a bare averment that Harijan Govindu mortgaged the subject property vide mortgage deed dated 6. 6. 1943 (thereby implying that the assignment to Harijan Govindu was prior to 1943), there was no material produced to show the date of the assignment. No documents whatsoever prior to 1970 were produced establishing the date of assignment in any way. (iv) Petitioner No.

1 was the sole Plaintiff Witness and examined as PW1. She specifically deposed that she Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. was not aware of the assignment of the land to Harijan Govindu and the conditions in the Patta. (v) The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) was examined as DW2 and specifically stated that the land had been assigned to Harijan Govindu subject to the condition of non-alienation. (vi) By way of the decree dated 05. 08. 1999, the Ld. Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. A perusal of the said decree/order reveals that there has been no examination of the title/possession of the Petitioners/ Plaintiff. Further, for establishing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs' case that they had been dispossessed illegally, instead of relying on the Plaintiff to establish their case, the Ld. Trial Court placed the burden on the Defendant/Government to refute it (Pg 101-102). The consideration of the Ld.

Trial Court nowhere relies on/finds that the assignment to Harijan Govindu was in/before 1943, but only on the sale deed of 1970 (Pg 102-106). The Ld. Trial Court directed recovery of possession to the Plaintiffs/Petitioner. (vii) Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Trial Court, the State filed an Appeal being Appeal Suit No. 1931 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court, in which the impugned order came to be passed, whereby the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The Hon'ble High Court inter alia observed that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs did not file any document showing the title of Harijan Govindu (Pg11, Pg15). The Hon'ble High Court primarily based the impugned order on the fact that rather than placing the burden on the Plaintiffs to prove their case, the Ld. Trial Court erroneously placed the burden on the Defendant/ State and drew an adverse inference (Pg 12-13).

The Hon'ble High Court also duly noted that the Petitioners herein accepted that buildings had been constructed and the Government was running an educational institution in the subject land since 1995 (Pg 14). The Hon'ble High Court also noted that no evidence of cultivation was adduced by the Plaintiffs. There is only 1 stray sentence that the assignment was in 1943, but the same is not borne 1046 out from any material/evidence on record whatsoever, especially in light of Petitioner No. 1's admission that she did not know the conditions of the assignment, and it is not the basis of the impugned order. The Hon'ble High Court also correctly relied on the Full Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, whereby the operation of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 were held to be retrospective. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Appeal. B.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ STATE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE JUDGMENT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY: (viii) The Petitioners Have Not Proved Title to the Subject Land: ● The Petitioners claim their title as a subsequent purchaser of the assignee Harijan Govindu. It is admittedly the Petitioners' own case that after 1954, any assignment to landless poor contained the condition of non-alienation (Pg C). However, apart from relying on a bare, unsupported observation of the Hon'ble High Court and a bare statement that Harijan Govindu mortgaged the property in 1943, there is no material adduced to demonstrate that the assignment was before 1954. To the contrary, the land record produced by the Respondent State before this Hon'ble Court showing assignment being of the year 1955 (Pg 9 of the Affidavit dt 30. 12. 2021 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh) as well as the deposition of DW1, Mandal Revenue Officer before the Ld.

Trial Court clearly demonstrates that there the assignment was one, which contained the condition of non-alienation. ● In this regard, reliance may be placed on Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which cover evidence of documents including grants. Section 91 clearly states that no evidence of such document Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. is acceptable ".. except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible.. " In the present case, the Plaintiffs/Petitioners have not produced the document/any admissible evidence in terms of the Indian Evidence Act to prove assignment to Harijan Govindu being prior to 1954. ● To the contrary, the Respondent State has produced the Extract of the Land Register showing the assignment to be of 1955 as well as the oral evidence of DW2 before the Ld.

Trial Court, wherein he asserts that the assignment had a condition of non-alienation, which is not controverted by the Petitioner/Plaintiff in any manner. ● The Petitioner has relied on the full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dharma Reddy v. Sub- Collector, Bodhan & Ors. AIR 1987 AP 160 (pg109- of the Compilation for Final Hearing on Behalf of the Petitioner). The said judgment, in para 2, frames the issue being that whether the operation of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is retrospective. The said question was answered holding the operation of the Act to be retrospective, and any transfer of an assigned land even prior to coming into force of the Act to be illegal. It was held as follows: "10. After having considered all aspects of the matter in depth, due regard having been had to the submissions made by the counsel for the writ petitioners agreeing with the views of the Second Division Bench in the judgment in W. P. Nos.

3972/78 and batch dt. 9-10-1980 V. C. Kondayya's case, (supra) we answer the question formulated for our decision in the affirmative holding that S. 3(1) of the Act not only prohibits transfer of the assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land which took place prior to the coming into 1048 force of the Act shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law, and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. Having thus answered the question of law, which arose out of the order of reference to the Full Bench we direct these writ petitions to be posted before a learned single Judge to deal with the other points, if any arising out of the pleadings, and to finally dispose them of...

" (Emphasis supplied) ● On the issue of possession/cultivation, it is pertinent to point out that admittedly, as per the statement of the Petitioner as well as the finding of the Hon'ble High Court, the buildings had been erected and were operational by 1995. Thus, the possession must have been taken by the Government much earlier in order to construct the said building. However, the Petitioner/Plaintiff instituted the suit only in 1996. If the land had been in continuous possession/cultivation, it is submitted that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs would have known of the taking over by the Government/ resumption, yet the Suit was filed years later, thereby demonstrating that the Petitioners were not in continuous possession/cultivation. ● Thus, viewed from any angle, the Plaintiffs/Petitioners did not have valid title to the land, as the land was land assigned to a landless poor, and could not be transferred in any manner. Such a sale is illegal and void ab