Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has held that the Government cannot resort to summary proceedings for eviction where there is a bona fide dispute over the title to land, particularly when the dispute concerns possession and ownership dating back several decades.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered a judgment in the context of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, holding that long-standing title disputes cannot be conclusively determined through summary proceedings.

The dispute concerned 40.65 acres of land in Nellore, which the Andhra Pradesh Government claimed were assigned lands and could not have been transferred.

The land had been in private possession since 1920 and was subsequently inherited by B.J. Rao, who sold different portions, including 46.23 acres to Circar Paper Mills in 1980. After Circar Paper Mills went into liquidation, the Official Liquidator took possession of the property in 2001 and, with the Company Court's permission, put it up for public auction.

J.K. Sugar Mills Ltd. emerged as the successful bidder for ₹7.80 crore. At the stage of auction, the Government objected, claiming that 40.65 acres were government-assigned land. The Company Court nevertheless confirmed the sale, subject to payment to the Government.

The High Court's appellate court later set aside the auction confirmation, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran held that the summary eviction jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for adjudication of a serious and bona fide title dispute.

“The landlords also claim title on the strength of registered deeds as also mutation entries carried out in accordance with sale deeds. The Government cannot plead ignorance of either the sanctions and permissions granted or of the mutation entries made. The acquisition of the properties as carried out by the Government for APIIC clearly indicates the ownership of at least the said property being in the hands of private individuals. The Company in liquidation is said to have purchased the adjacent properties from owners whose title also is asserted on the basis of registered sale deeds and the mutation entries. The long possession itself restrains this Court from accepting any summary proceedings for eviction.”, the court observed.

Since there existed a bona fide title dispute from long, the Court relying upon its 1982 judgment of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another held that the Respondent-Government's claim of title involved a genuine and longstanding dispute, which could not be resolved through summary eviction proceedings, particularly when the Government had not produced sufficient material to substantiate its claim.

In Thummala Krishna Rao also a dispute existed between the State Government and the respondents as to the title of the three plots of land, where an issue also arose about the Nawab's encroachment on the land. Therein the Court said that “whether the title to the property vested in the Government as a result of the acquisition and whether the Nawab encroached upon the property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession was held to be a question, which arises for decision in a properly constituted suit. Till such resolution of the dispute is arrived at there can be no summary eviction was the finding.”

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, directing the restoration of the auction proceedings.

Cause Title: M/s Circar Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Nellore Distt. & Ors. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 868

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv.  Mr. M.Srinivas R. Rao,Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P., ADv. Ms. Namita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv. Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Richa Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kashish Tewatia, Adv. Ms. Mrinalini Tandon, Adv.

Tags: