Public Authorities Must Take Statutory Notice Issued To Them In All Seriousness: Supreme Court Explains Significance Of Notice U/S. 80 CPC

The Supreme Court has explained certain important points regarding Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the procedure for filing a Suit against the Government or a Public Officer.

The Court observed that, in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities and that the Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness.

The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it allowed an Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in a Suit.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “A statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality. Its purpose is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to reconsider the matter in light of established legal principles and make a decision in accordance with the law. However, in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities.”

The Court noted that a notice issued under Section 80 CPC must include the following –

i. The name, description, and place of residence of the person providing the notice.

ii. A statement outlining the cause of action.

iii. The relief sought by the plaintiff.

It further enunciated that when determining whether the essential requirements of Section 80 CPC have been met, the Court should consider the following questions –

(i) Has the notice provided adequate information to allow the authorities to identify the person issuing the notice?

(ii) Have the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiff been sufficiently detailed?

(iii) Has the written notice been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority as specified in the Section?

(iv) Has the suit been initiated after the expiration of two months following the delivery or submission of the notice, and does the plaint include a statement confirming that such notice has been provided as required?

Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Anand Padmanabhan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Appellants/Plaintiffs alleged that in 1995, the Respondents/Defendants without any intimation or prior notice, unlawfully dispossessed the Appellants from a land that compelled them to institute a Suit wherein they sought a declaration of their title to the said land. According to them, the ownership of the land can be traced back to 1943 when the same was originally owned by a man. They submitted that the land was not a Government assigned land but rather a private property over which the Respondents had no right, title, or interest at any point of time. They further claimed that, as the Respondents wanted to construct a District Institute of Education and Training Centre (DIET) building on the said land, they were forcibly dispossessed without payment of any compensation of any description.

Upon seeking explanation from the Respondents, they were informed that the land was an assigned Government land, endowed with non-alienable rights to it and that the Government retained the rights to resume the assigned land at any time for a ‘public purpose’. The Appellants refuted such a claim of the Respondents before the Trial Court, contending that the same was a ‘Patta Land’ and by its very nature, it could not have been assigned to anybody. The Appellants also submitted a representation addressed to the District Collector, who did not respond to the same. Being aggrieved, they issued a notice under Section 80 CPC, intimating that a Suit would be instituted against the State if the land was not reconveyed back to them. Ultimately, they instituted a Suit and the Trial Court decreed the Suit in their favour. The Respondents challenged this before the High Court, which allowed their Appeal. Hence, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “The primary objective behind Section 80 of the CPC is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable.”

The Court added that unlike private parties, the Government is expected to objectively and impartially evaluate the matter, seek appropriate legal advice, and make decisions in public interest within the two-month period mandated by the section and this serves to save both time and taxpayer’s money by preventing needless litigation.

“The legislative intent is to ensure that public funds are not squandered on unnecessary legal battles. The provision of the notice is intended to prompt the Government or public officer to engage in negotiations for a fair settlement or, at the very least, to explain to the potential plaintiff why their claim is being contested”, it remarked.

The Court took note of the following principles governing the adjudication of declaratory title suits against the Government –

i. Suits for declaration of title against the government differ from suits against private parties on two counts:

a. First, there is a presumption in favour of the Government in such suits, as all lands which are unoccupied or not vested in any individual or local authority, are presumed to belong exclusively to the Government.

b. Secondly, there is an additional burden of proof on the party seeking declaration of title against the Government. The plaintiff has to establish its possession over the land in question for a period of thirty years as opposed to twelve years in the case of adverse possession against a private party.

ii. A decree declaring title against the Government must not be passed casually. Before granting any such decree, the trial court must ensure that the plaintiff has furnished adequate documentary evidence, either through title deeds tracing ownership for over thirty years or by establishing adverse possession for a period of thirty years.

iii. The Trial Court must verify whether the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as the owner, holder, or occupant in the relevant revenue or municipal records for more than thirty years.

iv. Finally, the Trial Court must carefully scrutinize the nature of the possession as may be asserted, determining whether the same is authorized or unauthorized, permissive or casual, furtive or clandestine, as well as open, continuous, and hostile, or implied by title, to ensure that public property is not inadvertently converted into private ownership by unscrupulous elements.

The Court observed that the Government's obligation differs from that of private parties, as it is expected to objectively assess the claim, seek legal advice as necessary, and make decisions in public interest within the stipulated two-month timeframe.

“The overarching goal of this mandatory provision is to promote justice and the public good by minimising unnecessary legal disputes”, it also said.

Moreover, the Court remarked that Section 80 CPC has become more of a ritual due to the administration's lack of responsiveness, despite recommendations from the Central Law Commission for its removal from the Code.

“The purpose of law is the advancement of justice. The least that was required in the present case was for the State Authorities to acknowledge the notice issued by the appellants herein and inform them as regards their stance. We make it abundantly clear that the Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness”, it further emphasised.

The Court said that the Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation as they are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation.

“… we should have allowed this appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the appellants herein. We could have directed the State Authorities to put the appellants back in possession. However, it is too late in the day to pass such a decree as it is going to be extremely difficult to give effect to such a decree. The construction stood completed almost thirty years back. It would be too much for this Court to ask the State Authorities to demolish that part of the construction made over the suit land. In such circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the State must be asked to compensate the appellants in terms of money”, it concluded.

The Court, therefore, directed the State to pay an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs towards compensation to the Appellants, withing three months.

The Court also directed the Registry to circulate one copy each of its Judgment to all the High Courts across the country and one copy each to all the Chief Secretaries of the respective State Governments with more emphasis on the chapter of Section 80 CPC.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 383)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, AOR Raavi Yogesh Venkata, Advocates Twinkle Rathi, Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar, and Thithiksha Padmam.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Anand Padmanabhan, AORs Guntur Pramod Kumar, Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, V. Sridhar Reddy, and Rohit Jaiswal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment