Decades Of Possession Doesn't Create Ownership Or Compensation Rights On Encroached Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Justice Harinath N was dealing with a batch of petitions whereby residents of Gunadala area in Vijaywada (petitioners) had challenged proceedings of 2023, whereby the State rejected grant of compensation for acquiring land on which the petitioners were residing on the grounds that the said land belonged to the Government, and that the petitioners were illegal encroachers. The Government wanted to acquire the land for construction of a railway over-bridge.

The petitioners argued that they were permanent residents of the land in question, which they acquired from their ancestors, and they cannot be construed as encroachers on account of their continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property for over 100 years. However, the Single Judge held,

“An encroacher of Government land would remain an encroacher, regardless of whether the encroacher has been in possession of the encroached land for decades. The possession of the said property by the encroacher is neither permissive possession nor legalised. The said possession of land would have to be considered illegal, and illegal encroachers cannot claim equities for the grant of compensation on par with the landowners having valid title and ownership documents. The encroachers of any Government land cannot claim any right, title, interest, lien or any vested interest without regularisation of their encroachment or the Government issuing any pattas in their favour or any other legally valid document which would regularise their encroachment.”

The Court further explained that illegal encroachers cannot invoke the Act of 2013, as the “Act was not introduced in the interest of illegal encroachers. The Act is a beneficial legislation which ought to be extended to the land owners and property owners, who have a valid title over the same or granted any vested rights under the various enactments or granted any patta rights over the property, including assigned lands or the property owners who are declared as owners by virtue of Court orders.”

The Court further stated that the objective of the 2013 Act is to ensure that landowners and affected families are provided with just and fair compensation, and that they become partners in development, leading to improvements in their post-acquisition social and economic status.

Background

The petitioners had also submitted that they were regularly paying property taxes, and held electricity and municipal water connections. While they did not raise objections against the construction of the over-bridge, they contended that they were landless poor people eking out their livelihood by running shops there, and eviction would deprive them of their livelihood.

In contrast, the State argued that the said land was Government property, and the petitioners had neither produced any title document, deed, or order that established their ownership, nor were they granted patta certificates for the same. Moreover, the land was classified as canal land, with a portion being classified as burial ground, and their occupation was highly objectionable. It was further argued that payment of property tax and submission of electricity and water bills do not confer any legal or transferable title, and thus, the 2013 cannot be invoked.

The Court referred to Section 3(r) of 2013 Act— which defines 'land-owner' to include any person whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building with the authority concerned, or who is granted forest rights under specific special legislations, or who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land, or any person declared as such by an order of Court or Authority; and Section 3(n)— which defines 'holding of land respectively' as the total land held by a person as an owner, occupant or tenant or otherwise. It held,

“The petitioners' cases do not fall within any of the categories for considering them as landowners, as defined under Section 3(r) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 3(n) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would also not come to the rescue of the petitioners, as none of the petitioners held the land in the capacity of landowners.”

Dismissing the petitions, the Single Judge observed that claim of petitioners seeking compensation cannot be entertained.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos.16316 of 2021 and batch; CC. 4939 of 2023.

Case Title: THOTA VENKATADRI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and batch

Click Here To Read/Download Order