Encroacher remains encroacher despite 100 years of possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court rejects compensation plea

What was the case?

• The municipal corporation intended to acquire the property for the construction of a railway over bridge (ROB), and the petitioners were informed that they were in occupation of government land and required to be evicted from the said land.
• The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were permanent residents of the Gunadala area and that they acquired the property through their ancestors.
• It was submitted that some of the petitioners’ forefathers were living there for about 100 years or more.
• The counsel for the petitioners submitted that they cannot be considered encroachers on account of the petitioners’ continuous, uninterrupted and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the property for more than the last 100 years.
• The municipal corporation and state authorities opposed the petitions, stating that the land in question was government land and that none of the petitioners held valid title documents.
• It was further submitted that on humanitarian grounds, the corporation offered housing to the evacuees.
• It was contended that the petitioners had occupied the government land illegally and could not seek compensation after enjoying the property for all the years without any vested interest.

What the court held?

• 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.
• In the absence of any title document, none of the petitioners and their possession of the property would come within the ambit of Section 3(n) and 3(r) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• Insofar as meeting the criteria for taking any action to evict them, the respondents are duty-bound to issue notices prior to taking any such action.
• Illegal encroachers cannot claim compensation and invoke the Act of 2013.
• The said Act was not introduced in the interest of illegal encroachers.
• The petitioners’ cases do not fall within any of the categories for considering them as landowners, as defined under Section 3(r) of the Act, 2013.
• The claim of the petitioners for compensation cannot be entertained and the petitioners have not made out any case for the grant of any other relief.

Who is a landowner as per Section 3(r) of the Act of 2013?

According to Section 3(r), landowner includes any person-

(i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or

(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iii) who is entitled to be granted patta rights on the land under any law of the state including assigned lands; or

(iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court or authority.