After 30-year legal battle, SC asks Andhra Pradesh govt to pay Rs 70-lakh compensation to landowners

Representational pic

After a 30-year legal battle, a group of private landowners was awarded Rs 70 lakh in compensation by the Supreme Court on Monday, for dispossessing them of their over 3.34 acres of land in Kurnool District by the Andhra Pradesh Government, news agency PTI reported.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court observed that "the purpose of law is the advancement of justice" and criticised the state's lackadaisical approach in responding to legal notices issued by private individuals in land disputes.

According to PTI, the top court noted that it could have ordered the authorities in Andhra Pradesh to return the land to the appellants, but it was "too late in the day" to issue such a decree, as construction on the land had been completed 30 years ago.

"The least that was required in the present case was for the state authorities to acknowledge the notice issued by the appellants herein and inform them as regards their stance. We make it abundantly clear that the public authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness. The public authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation," stated the bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

The judgment stemmed from a long-standing land dispute between Yerikala Sunkalamma and other appellants and the state of Andhra Pradesh. The appellants claimed they were unlawfully dispossessed of their land in 1995 without prior notice from the state authorities, leading them to file a civil lawsuit in 1996 at a lower court, seeking a declaration of their title over the land.

According to PTI, the trial court ruled in favour of the private landowners, declaring them the lawful owners and ordering the state government to return possession of the land. However, the Andhra Pradesh government challenged this ruling in the high court at Hyderabad, which overturned the trial court's order in 2014, citing the appellants' failure to prove their title and arguing that the land was government-assigned property.

Supreme Court criticises Andhra Pradesh state authorities over delayed responses to private parties' notices in land disputes

Subsequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, which thoroughly reviewed the matter. The apex court criticised the state authorities for failing to respond to statutory notices issued by the appellants.

Writing the 95-page judgment for the bench, Justice Pardiwala emphasised that public authorities must not subject citizens to prolonged litigation by ignoring statutory notices. The bench acknowledged the appellants' claim to the land but deemed restoration impossible, given that construction had been completed almost three decades ago. It, therefore, directed the state government to compensate the appellants monetarily.

"Having regard to the nature of the land, the area in question, and the prolonged litigation, we believe that the State should pay an amount of Rs 70 lakhs as compensation," the bench stated, adding that the compensation should be paid within three months of the verdict.

The Supreme Court, in its verdict, referred to an earlier judgment and explained, "Suits for declaration of title against the government differ from suits against private parties on two counts - First, there is a presumption in favour of the Government in such suits, as all lands which are unoccupied or not vested in any individual or local authority are presumed to belong exclusively to the Government. Secondly, there is an additional burden of proof on the party seeking the declaration of title against the Government. The 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."

The bench was particularly critical of the state authorities' delayed responses to private parties' notices in land disputes, and stated, "The public authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation. They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or, in any case, before he embarks upon the litigation."

The apex court added that it should have allowed the appeal and ruled in favour of the private parties. "We could have directed the state authorities to put the appellants back in possession. However, it is too late in the day to pass such a decree, as it is going to be extremely difficult to give effect to such a decree. The construction was completed almost thirty years back. It would be too much for this Court to ask the state authorities to demolish that part of the construction made over the suit land. In such circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the State must be asked to compensate the appellants in terms of money."

The bench also directed its registry to circulate copies of the judgment to all the high courts across the country and send one copy each to the chief secretaries of the respective state governments, with particular emphasis on the notices sent to them under the Civil Procedure Code.

(With PTI inputs)