The Andhra Pradesh High Court has established a critical procedural safeguard in land acquisition disputes, holding that authorities must conduct proper survey demarcation before initiating eviction proceedings. This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and fair compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, while protecting property owners from arbitrary dispossession.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sankalakshmi Deepa and Sanka Geetha Swarupini, challenged a notice issued by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation under Sections 405 and 406 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. The notice directed them to vacate a site bearing Door No. 49-1-4, Block-1, Ward No-1, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada, measuring 184 sq. yards, and threatened demolition of their shops. The petitioners claimed ownership through registered sale deeds dated 31.12.2014, tracing their title to a 1991 deed.
Procedural History
The dispute escalated through the following stages:
- 2014: Petitioners purchased the property via registered sale deeds
- 2023: Respondents classified the land as Government poramboke (vagu) land in Sy. No. 248/4
- 29.07.2023: Notice issued under Sections 405 and 406 of the APMC Act, 1955 demanding vacation
- 21.08.2023: High Court granted interim stay on the notice
- 04.07.2023: Proceedings by the 4th respondent classified the land as Government poramboke and rejected compensation claims
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contended that:
- They held valid registered title deeds for land in Sy. No. 248/2
- The property was assessed for taxes and regularly paid to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation
- They were not encroachers but lawful owners entitled to compensation under the LARR Act, 2013
- The respondents bundled their case with other encroachers, denying them fair compensation
The respondents argued that:
- The petitioners were in occupation of land in Sy. No. 248/4, classified as Government poramboke land
- Property tax payment does not establish title over Government land
- Alternative housing was offered to the petitioners in New RRPeta, Phase-III
- The land was required for construction of a railway overbridge (ROB)
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether authorities could initiate eviction proceedings and demolition of structures without first conducting a proper survey to demarcate the disputed land and verify the petitioners' title claims, particularly when the petitioners possessed registered sale deeds and the land was required for public infrastructure development.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners' counsel advanced the following arguments:
- The petitioners held valid registered sale deeds for land in Sy. No. 248/2, establishing their title
- The respondents failed to initiate acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, 2013, violating the petitioners' right to fair compensation
- The notice under Sections 405 and 406 of the APMC Act was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice
- Mere classification of land as poramboke without proper survey and demarcation could not override registered title deeds
- The petitioners were willing to cooperate with the ROB construction but sought fair compensation for their land
For the Respondents
The standing counsel for the 2nd respondent countered with:
- The petitioners were in occupation of land in Sy. No. 248/4, not Sy. No. 248/2 as claimed
- The land in Sy. No. 248/4 was classified as Government poramboke (vagu) land, making the petitioners encroachers
- Property tax payment does not confer title, especially over Government land
- Alternative housing was offered to the petitioners in New RRPeta, Phase-III
- The land was required for public infrastructure (ROB), and the petitioners' claims could not override public interest
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous examination of the factual and legal matrix, focusing on the following key aspects:
- Title Dispute Resolution: The Court observed that the petitioners claimed title over land in Sy. No. 248/2, while the respondents asserted that the petitioners were in occupation of land in Sy. No. 248/4. This discrepancy necessitated a proper survey and demarcation to resolve the title dispute. The Court emphasized that:
"The only issue for consideration is whether the petitioners' property forms part and parcel of Sy. Nos. 248/2 or 248/4. To determine this issue, the petitioners would have to take appropriate steps to conduct a proper survey and demarcate their property by reference to the title documents."
- Natural Justice and Fair Procedure: The Court underscored the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly in cases involving potential dispossession. The respondents' failure to conduct a proper survey before issuing the eviction notice was held to be procedurally flawed. The Court noted that:
"As the petitioners are disputing the survey conducted by the respondents, a fresh survey to demarcate the extent of land in Sy. No. 248/4 would suffice for resolving the dispute."
-
Compensation Under LARR Act, 2013: The Court left open the possibility for the petitioners to claim compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, subject to their ability to establish title over the land. This observation reinforced the statutory framework for land acquisition and compensation, ensuring that property owners are not arbitrarily deprived of their rights.
-
Public Interest vs. Private Rights: While acknowledging the public interest in constructing the ROB, the Court balanced this against the petitioners' property rights. The judgment clarified that public infrastructure development cannot override private property rights without following due process, including proper survey demarcation and compensation under the LARR Act, 2013.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The petitioners were permitted to take all necessary steps to demarcate their property with reference to their sale deeds.
- The survey must also demarcate the land in Sy. No. 248/4, particularly the 0.66 acres falling within the ROB alignment.
- The petitioners were left free to claim compensation under the LARR Act, 2013, subject to establishing their right, title, and interest over the land.
- No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Survey Demarcation Is Mandatory Before Eviction
This judgment establishes a critical procedural safeguard for property owners facing eviction or demolition:
- Authorities cannot initiate eviction proceedings based solely on preliminary classifications (e.g., poramboke land) without conducting a proper survey to verify title claims
- Practitioners should insist on survey demarcation as a precondition for any eviction or demolition action, particularly when registered title deeds are involved
- Courts are likely to view eviction notices issued without prior survey as arbitrary and violative of natural justice
Compensation Claims Under LARR Act, 2013 Are Non-Negotiable
The judgment reinforces the statutory framework for land acquisition:
- Property owners must be given the opportunity to claim compensation under the LARR Act, 2013, even in cases involving Government land
- Authorities cannot bypass acquisition proceedings by classifying land as poramboke or encroached
- Practitioners should frame compensation claims under the LARR Act, 2013 as a fallback argument, even in writ petitions challenging eviction notices
Property Tax Payment Does Not Confer Title
The Court clarified a common misconception:
- Mere payment of property tax does not establish title over land, particularly Government land
- Practitioners should caution clients against relying solely on tax receipts to prove ownership
- Title must be established through registered documents, survey demarcation, and other legally recognized methods
