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

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 24-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.