Supreme Court Says Government Cannot Use Summary Eviction To Settle Genuine Title Disputes

New Delhi, Sep 7 (KNN) The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot use summary eviction proceedings to settle a genuine dispute over land title, particularly where questions of ownership and possession have remained contested for several decades.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling in a case concerning the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, holding that serious and longstanding title disputes must be adjudicated through properly constituted proceedings rather than summary eviction.

Dispute Involved 40.65 Acres In Nellore

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

The property had been in private possession since 1920 and was subsequently inherited by B.J. Rao, who sold various portions, including 46.23 acres to Circar Paper Mills in 1980.

Following the company’s liquidation, the Official Liquidator took possession of the property in 2001 and, with the Company Court’s approval, put it up for public auction.

J.K. Sugar Mills Emerges As Successful Bidder

J.K. Sugar Mills Ltd. emerged as the successful bidder with a bid of Rs 7.80 crore. The government objected at the auction stage, claiming that 40.65 acres formed part of government-assigned land.

The Company Court nevertheless confirmed the sale, subject to payment to the government.

The High Court’s appellate court subsequently set aside the auction confirmation, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Long Possession Weighs Against Summary Eviction

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court restored the auction proceedings. 

Justice Chandran, who authored the judgment, held that summary eviction proceedings cannot substitute for adjudicating a serious and bona fide title dispute.

The court noted that the private claimants relied on registered sale deeds and mutation entries, while government actions relating to property acquisition for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) also indicated private ownership. 

It further observed that the long period of private possession weighed against resorting to summary eviction proceedings.

SC Relies On 1982 Precedent

The Supreme Court relied on its 1982 judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, which held that where the government’s title is genuinely disputed, the issue must be resolved through a properly constituted suit.

In that case, the court had held that questions concerning whether title vested in the government through acquisition and subsequent possession resulted in adverse possession required adjudication in a regular suit.

Government Claim Must Be Established Through Proper Proceedings

Applying the same principle, the Supreme Court held that the government’s claim in the present case involved a genuine and longstanding title dispute and that sufficient material had not been produced to establish its claim through summary proceedings.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and the auction proceedings were directed to be restored.

Impact on MSMEs

The ruling protects MSMEs from arbitrary eviction where ownership of commercial or industrial land is genuinely disputed. 

It provides greater security of tenure, reduces the risk of sudden disruption to business operations, and ensures that government claims over MSME-held property are established through proper legal proceedings. 

(KNN Bureau)