Failure To Acknowledge Section 80 CPC Notice Or Communicate Stand May Lead To Adverse Inference Against Government : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 24) expressed concerns about the declining significance of the notices under Section 80 CPC noting that in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities.

The Court observed that the government/public authorities must acknowledge the notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) in all seriousness, and must not sit over them to force the citizens into the vagaries of litigation. It added that when a notice is sent to the government by a litigant, it serves as an opportunity for the Government or a public officer to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable.

Further, the Court stated that an adverse inference would be drawn against the government for not acknowledging the notice or informing the litigant about its stand on the issue raised in the notice.

“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. The Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation. They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation. In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought. This is exactly what has happened in the present case.”, the court observed

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the case where the Appellant's notice served to the Andhra Pradesh Government(respondent) under Section 80 CPC was ignored by the Respondent and no reply was given by the Respondent Authorities to the Appellant's notice.

The case pertains to a dispute over the ownership and possession of a piece of land in the State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Appellant claimed to be the owner of the suit property contending that they had been under the possession since 1970, supported by Pattadar Passbook (issued under Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971) and land revenue receipts.

The Appellants alleged forcible dispossession by the State in 1995 without notice or compensation. Thereafter, they sent a Section 80 C.P.C. notice to the District Magistrate, intimating that a suit would be instituted against the State if the Subject Land was not reconveyed back to the appellants.

However, no reply was given to the notice by the Respondent-Authorities prompting the Appellants to file a civil suit.

The trial court decided in favor of the appellants, citing procedural irregularities in resumption and reliance on the Pattadar Passbook as proof of possession/title.

However, the High Court reversed the trial court's findings noting that under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the appellants had no valid title because the 1977 Act resumes the title in favour of the government with the retrospective effect.

Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala held in the Appellant's favour holding that the State failed to prove the land was "assigned" to claim resumption under the 1977 Act. The Court noted that the Appellants' possession since 1970, supported by Pattadar Passbook and revenue receipts, raised a presumption of ownership under Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 110, Indian Evidence Act), and the State's inaction for decades (1943–1995) undermined its claim.

In addition to the aforesaid, the Court highlighted the lackadaisical approach of the Respondent in not responding to the Section 80 notice sent by the Appellant. It criticized the State for ignoring the appellants' statutory notice, forcing litigation.

The Court emphasized that public authorities must respond to notices to avoid adverse inferences. Because the Respondent failed to respond to the Appellant's notice, he was dragged into the vagaries of litigation, the Court said that the State's silence on the appellants' Section 80 notice weakened its defense.

Since, the Appellants were dispossessed from the Suit property long ago, and a structure was installed by the Respondent on the Suit property, therefore instead of demolishing that part of the construction made over the Suit land, the Court asked them to compensate the appellants in terms of money and ordered a payment of Rs. 70 Lakhs compensation to the Appellant.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Case Title: YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS. 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata, AOR Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Adv. Mr. Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Thithiksha Padmam, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv.