-
by sayum
04 July 2026 2:40 PM
Supreme Court Directs Andhra Pradesh Government to Pay ₹70 Lakhs Compensation for Forcibly Taking Over Land from Tribals Without Due Process or Acquisition. In a pathbreaking judgment Supreme Court of India condemned the arbitrary and unlawful action of the Andhra Pradesh Government in forcibly resuming private land from members of a Scheduled Tribe community without initiating acquisition proceedings or paying any compensation. The Court invoked the newly enacted Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and held that “possession is prima facie evidence of ownership,” and once possession is proved, “the burden of proving that a person is not the owner lies on the person who affirms the contrary.”
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ordered the State to pay ₹70 lakhs to the appellants as monetary compensation for being dispossessed of their land in violation of constitutional and statutory protections, even as the land had long been developed for public use. In its powerful ruling, the Court remarked that “what the State did in the present case was nothing but an exhibit of raw power by taking over the possession forcibly.”
Case Background: A 30-Year Legal Battle Over Tribal Land
The appellants, members of the Yerukala community, a Scheduled Tribe, were in possession of the disputed land since 1970. The land, known as “Thippalanaduma Chenu,” was acquired by their father-in-law by a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1970. They had cultivated the land for decades and produced before the Court the Pattadar Passbook issued by the Revenue Department and land revenue receipts, proving their lawful possession and enjoyment of the property.However, in 1989, the State forcibly resumed possession of the land under the claim that it had originally been assigned to a Harijana Govindu and that such land was resumable without compensation. The appellants issued a statutory notice under Section 80 of the CPC, but the government failed to respond. The appellants were left with no option but to file a suit seeking declaration of title and restoration of possession.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the High Court upheld the dismissal, largely based on the assumption that the land was assigned to Harijana Govindu and therefore resumable. Neither court addressed the long-standing possession of the appellants or the State’s failure to prove subsisting title.
Oral and Documentary Evidence: Government’s Inability to Prove Assignment or Ownership
The Court extensively analyzed the oral testimony of P.W.1 (the second plaintiff) and D.W.1 (the Mandal Revenue Officer). P.W.1 clearly narrated the sequence of events that established their possession, cultivation, and ownership through lawful purchase and mutation in revenue records.
The MRO, on the other hand, “categorically admitted that he did not possess the D Form Patta said to have been issued to Harijana Govindu”, and further admitted, “Ex. A3 Patta Passbook was issued by our department in favour of first plaintiff’s father-in-law,” and “Exs. A4 to A6 were land revenue receipts.”
The Court observed that “the State has miserably failed to prove that the land was assigned to Harijana Govindu or that it retained a subsisting title.” The State’s narrative lacked any record of assignment, proof of breach of assignment conditions, or initiation of legal resumption proceedings.
Legal Position on Possession and Ownership: Detailed Interpretation of Section 113 BSA
A major legal pivot of the judgment was the Court’s invocation and interpretation of Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which states: “When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”
The Court stressed that Section 113 embodies the principle that possession is prima facie proof of ownership, shifting the burden to the person who challenges that ownership. It held:
“The Section does not make a distinction between the Government and a private citizen… The onus under Section 113 of the BSA was on the State to prove that the Government had a subsisting title to the Subject Land.”
The Court also elaborated on the jurisprudence underlying Section 113, referring to earlier interpretations under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. In M. Krishna Aiyar v. Secretary of State for India (1910), the Madras High Court had held that long possession, even by an individual, casts the burden on the Government to prove its title. The Court reiterated that “possession coupled with entries in revenue records is sufficient to raise a presumption of ownership unless rebutted by cogent evidence.”
The Court further emphasized that “the presumption under Section 113 applies even against the State,” and “mere assertion of government ownership without evidence cannot defeat lawful possession.”
Constitutional Violation: Article 300-A and the Right to Property
The Court invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution, which prohibits the deprivation of property “except by authority of law.” It held: “The executive cannot deprive a person of property without specific legal authority which can be established in a court of law, however laudable the motive behind such deprivation may be.”
In scathing terms, the Court noted: “Why did the State remain silent from 1943 onwards, despite the mortgage, decree, court auction, and possession being with the plaintiffs for over 45 years?”
The Court found that the State had neither initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act nor followed any statutory process for resumption. Even if the land were assigned, it held, the Government had an obligation to acquire the land lawfully and pay fair compensation.
On the Doctrine of "Unconstitutional Conditions"
Referring to the landmark judgment of the 7-Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mekala Pandu, the Supreme Court held that any clause in an assignment deed or patta that denies compensation upon resumption is void and unconstitutional.
Quoting the AP High Court, the Supreme Court reiterated: “The ‘no compensation’ clause infringes Articles 14 and 31A of the Constitution… Even assignees are entitled to full compensation for resumed lands.”
It held that constitutional entitlements like livelihood, property, and dignity cannot be waived through administrative instruments like pattas or Board Standing Orders. Even assigned lands must be compensated if resumed for public purposes.
The Court took serious note of the Government’s failure to respond to the statutory notice under Section 80 of the CPC. It observed: “Statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality. Its purpose is to provide the Government with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and avoid litigation. The State cannot treat such notices as rituals.”
Relying on Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd. and Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, the Court held that public authorities are expected to engage with such notices in a responsible and responsive manner, failing which an adverse presumption may be drawn against them.
While recognizing that restoration of possession was no longer possible due to buildings constructed over the land nearly 30 years ago, the Court held that monetary compensation was the only viable remedy.
“We believe that the State should pay an amount of ₹70 lakhs towards compensation to the appellants.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part, and the State was directed to pay ₹70 lakhs within three months.
Further, the Registry was directed to circulate a copy of the judgment to all High Courts and to the Chief Secretaries of all States, emphasizing the significance of the ruling, particularly the chapters discussing Section 113 of the BSA and Section 80 CPC.
In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has:
Reinforced the statutory presumption of ownership based on possession under Section 113 BSA.
Reiterated that the State must follow due process before taking over any land, even if originally assigned.
Declared that clauses in pattas denying compensation are unconstitutional.
Condemned administrative highhandedness and failure to respond to legal notices.
Emphasized that compensation is not a matter of charity but a constitutional obligation.
The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of property rights, due process, and the Rule of Law in dealings between the State and its citizens, particularly those from vulnerable communities.
Date of Decision: March 24, 2025
