In a landmark ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court directed the Andhra Pradesh government to pay Rs 70 lakh in compensation to a group of private landowners for unlawfully dispossessing them of over 3.34 acres of land in Kurnool district. This decision comes after a protracted legal battle spanning nearly three decades, highlighting significant lapses in governmental response to legal disputes.
The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, criticized the state’s handling of the case, particularly its failure to seriously engage with statutory notices from the appellants, leading to unnecessary litigation. “The public authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation,” the justices remarked, emphasizing the duty of governmental bodies to act more responsibly.
The origins of the case date back to 1995, when the landowners were first dispossessed by the state authorities without prior notice. A civil lawsuit was filed the following year, seeking a declaration of title over the land. Initially, the trial court ruled in favor of the landowners, asserting their ownership and ordering the return of the land. However, the Andhra Pradesh government appealed this decision, and in 2014, the High Court at Hyderabad overturned the trial court’s ruling, questioning the appellants’ proof of title and claiming the land was government property.
Taking the matter to the Supreme Court, the appellants sought justice against the High Court’s decision. After extensive review, the Supreme Court found that while restoring the land to the appellants was unfeasible due to the extensive developments made over the past 30 years, compensation was warranted.
Justice Pardiwala, writing a comprehensive 95-page judgment, underscored the importance of governmental transparency and promptness in dealing with legal notices, stating, “They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation.”
In its verdict, the Supreme Court not only mandated compensation but also reflected on the broader implications of such disputes, noting the presumptions and burdens of proof typically involved in title declarations against the government. The court also expressed regret over not being able to restore possession to the appellants, acknowledging the complexity of demolishing long-standing constructions.
