*Yerikala Sunkalamma V. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SC)* 1. S.113 BSA raises a statutory presumption of ownership in favour of the person in possession. A person in possession is entitled to remain in possession until another person can disclose a better title u/s.113 BSA. This section does not make any distinction between the government and a private citizen. Therefore, it equally applies where a government claims to be the owner or challenges the ownership of the person who is in possession of the property. The onus is, therefore, on the state to prove that it has a subsisting title. (Maxims- “possession follows title”, “possession is the prima facie proof of ownership”.) 2. Suits for declaration of title u/s.27 of the Limitation Act, against the Government are different from the suits against individuals in 2 aspects- Firstly, there is a presumption available in favour of the government that all property is the property of the government, unless any person can establish his title. Secondly, such suits are governed by Article 112 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 30 years of adverse possession against the State (not 12 years as against any private citizen). 3. A decree declaring title against the government must not be passed casually. 4. 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. 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. 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. However, in practice, such notices have become empty formalities. The administration frequently remains unresponsive and fails to even inform the aggrieved party why their claim has been rejected. Hence, the LCI has even recommended to delete this section. 5. The SC has directed this judgment to be circulated in all states (HCs and Governments) with emphasis on S.80: “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.”