Deciding an important constitutional question arising out of the taking over of a piece of land of an erstwhile “zamindar” by the Andhra Pradesh under the Zamindari Abolition Act that came into force after the independence, the Supreme Court has ordered fresh look into the case as the State was “wrongly” represented by the district collector concerned.
Defining the scope of Article 300 of the Constitution, which deals with representation of the state in the civil disputes related to properties, the apex court said under the article if the property is in the control of the Centre, the suit has to be fought by the Union of India itself and if located in a state, then in the name of that particular state.
No officer could represent the state even in his official capacity in any civil suit, a bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar held, making a clear distinction between the representation of the government and the state under Article 300. “No individual officer of the government under the scheme of the constitution, nor under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can file a suit, nor initiate any proceeding in the name and the post he is holding, who is not a juristic persons,” the bench clarified. The land measuring 8.90 acres belonging to erstwhile “zamindar” of Tarla Estate in Srikakulam District was vested in the state of AP by the state government in September 1975. But some farmers, led by Bagathi Krishan Rao, had claimed “legal title” over the land on the strength of their possession of it since the zamindari days, while the government dispossessed them declaring it as forest land.