Telangana High Court
G.Poola vs The Spl.Tribunal Under Ap Land Grabbing ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.20213 OF 2016
ORDER :(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2016 in L.G.O.P.No.719 of 2004 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act 1989- cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district (for short, 'Special Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Shashi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed land grabbing case under Section 7-A(1) and 8 of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'Act, 1982') against the petitioner herein vide LGOP No.719 of 2004 before the Special Tribunal contending that respondent No.2 purchased the plot No.35 admeasuring 200 square yards consisting of one room AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 2 bearing Municipal No.30-94/12/35 in Sy.Nos.393 and 394 of Konojiguda village, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R.district from Golla Pochaiah under registered sale deed bearing document No.1488/98, dated 03.06.1998. The respondent No.2 sold the said plot to the respondent No.3 vide agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.1764/98, dated 10.07.1998 and respondents 2 and 3 are in possession of the said plot.
4. It is averred that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed suit in O.S.No.791 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North), R.R. district for perpetual injunction alleging that the petitioner herein tried to dispossess them from the said plot and interim injunction was also granted by the trial Court vide orders in I.A.No.2401 of 1998 in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed by an order dated 15.09.2003 with an observation that petitioner herein is in possession of the suit plot. It is further averred that taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit, petitioner herein started digging pits in the suit plot to raise pillars for permanent AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 3 structures. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed LGOP No.719 of 2004.
5. Petitioner herein filed counter before the Special Tribunal resisting LGOP and averred that the sale deed under which respondent Nos.2 and 3 are claiming right over the suit plot is, in fact, fabricated and the vendors of respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right to execute sale deed in their favour. It is further averred that the land in Sy.Nos.393 and 394 was originally belongs to one Khaja Mohinuddin and others and the same was in possession of several people including Vanjari Anjaneyulu @ Anjaiah, which is evident from the pahani for the year 1983-84 and layout was obtained from Granpanchayat, Alwal under permit No.13/1965 dated 26.02.1969 by dividing Sy.Nos.393 and 394 into different plots and sold them to the staff members of Gandhi Hospital in the year 1983-84. Petitioner herein purchased plot No.68 bearing Grampanchayat No.31-3-78 admeasuring 200 square yards from T.Pandu (who is the shareholder and family member of Vanjari Anjaneyulu) by registered sale deed dated 16.04.1984 and he is in AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 4 continuous possession of the schedule property from the date of purchase.
6. It is averred that the Tenancy Certificate under Section 38-E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was issued in favour of G.Pochaiah, who is grandson of Gurrapu Rajaiah, including Anjaneyulu. It is further averred that after purchase of the property, petitioner constructed one room on south-west corner after demolishing two rooms constructed on north-west corner of the property as the rooms were against vasthu and the Municipality assessed the structures and allotted house No.30-92/2, which was changed from time to time and present number is 1-30-843, Shivanagar, Khanajiguda. It is further averred that petitioner was working as Head Nurse in Gandhi Hospital and availed housing loan from ICICI Home Finance and started construction and when it was in final stage, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the LGC case.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Tribunal framed the following issues:
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 5
1. Whether the applicants are the lawful owners of the petition schedule property ?
2. Whether the respondent is the grabber of the petition schedule land and if so, the applicants are entitled to a decree for eviction directing the respondent to deliver vacant peaceful possession of petition schedule land to the applicants ?
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) or any point thereof, on account of wrongful possession of the petition schedule land by the respondent ?
4. Whether the respondent is liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provisions of Land Grabbing Laws ?
5. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim any benefits derived by the respondent out of the land grabbed and if so, what shall be the appropriate order ?
6. Whether the respondent was and is in possession of the schedule land since 1984 as lawful purchaser and if so, she can't be termed as a land grabber under the provisions of the Act ?
7. To what relief ?
8. To substantiate the claim before the Special Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and one third party was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, petitioner herself was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B25 were marked.
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 6 Commissioner appointed by the Special Tribunal was examined as CW.1 and Ex.C1 was marked.
9. Initially, the O.P. filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 preferred appeal before the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad vide LGA No.6 of 2010 and the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 30.06.2009 and remanded the matter to the Special Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the same afresh according to law.
10. Consequent upon the remand, the Special Tribunal passed orders dated 19.01.2012 directing the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records to survey and identify the subject plot. Pursuant to the order dated 19.01.2012, the Assistant Director had appointed Sri Kasinath, Inspector of Survey in the office of Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records for survey and identification of the subject plot. Accordingly, the said Inspector surveyed the land and submitted his report dated 06.07.2012 (Ex.C1) and as per the said report, the Inspector had identified the plot No.68, which AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 7 is in occupation of the petitioner herein and further observed that Door No.1-30-843 corresponding to old No.31-6-68 is in existence. The Inspector further observed that on comparison of the applicants layout plan, no plots are tallying though roads are being shown on East and South and plot No.35 in the name of respondent No.2 was not identified/existing. However, the Special Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record as well as the report dated 06.07.2012 submitted by the Inspector, had allowed LAOP and directed the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of three months.
11. The Special Tribunal observed that the sale deed dated 16.04.1984 does not specify the plot number and survey number in the schedule mentioned in Ex.B2-sale deed and further observed that with a view to circumvent this position, which is disadvantageous, the petitioner herein got executed Ex.B12- rectification deed/declaration deed dated 11.11.1994 i.e., after more than ten years to that effect that previously survey numbers AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 8 are not entered in the sale deed and the sale deed is being rectified and present plot No.42, which corresponds to old plot No.68 forming part of Sy.No.393 and 394, Kanojiguda village, Alwal Mandal, Secunderabad. The Special Tribunal further observed that it is not known where from the plot No.42 came into existence suddenly and it transformed into plot No.68 and that as per Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908, Ex.B12 requires registration (which was marked subject to objection). It is further observed that though Ex.B12 described as declaration, the contents of documents are in the form of rectifying the defects of earlier document i.e., Ex.B2. Therefore, Ex.B12 requires registration since the same is not registered. Ex.B12 cannot rectify the mistakes of Ex.B2.
12. The Special Tribunal specifically observed that when there is no layout plan of petitioner herein on record, Ex.C1-report cannot be given weight in favour of petitioner herein and further observed that work memos filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not answered by the Commissioner and he failed to identify the plot No.35 or the land of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and also AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 9 found fault with the Commissioner's report that he grossly erred in relying on the photocopy of the layout furnished by the counsel for petitioner herein. The Special Tribunal further observed that in Ex.B6-pahani for the year 1983-84 though it reflected the name of V.Anjaneyulu for the land admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.393 and Acs.2.17 guntas in Sy.No.394, does not establish the title of a party over the disputed property and also observed that Ex.B8-bank finance letter and Ex.B10- photos do not establish the title of the petitioner herein over the property and finally, observed that petitioner herein grabbed the subject plot and taking advantage of dismissal of O.S.No.791 of 1998, raised structures on the schedule property belonging to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thus, the Tribunal answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and directed the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property within a period of three months vide judgment dated 28.03.2016. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.03.2016, present Writ Petition is filed.
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 10
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had contended that petitioner herein purchased the plot No.68 in the year 1984 vide registered sale deed dated 16.04.1984, whereas the respondent No.2 purchased the plot no.35 in the year 1998 vide Document No.1488/98 dated 03.06.1998. Thus, the document of respondent No.2 is subsequent to the document of the petitioner herein. It is further contended that vendor of the petitioner has obtained layout from Alwal Grampanchayat vide Permit No.13/1965 dated 26.02.1969 and had sold the plots to the staff members of Gandhi Hospital in the year 1983-84 and the petitioner purchased the plot No.68 with structures bearing Grampanchayat No.31-6-68 admeasuring 200 square years from T.Pandu, who is shareholder and family member of Vanjari Anjaneyulu, vide registered sale deed dated 16.04.1984.
14. Learned senior counsel further contended that suit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.791 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North), R.R.District was dismissed with an observation that petitioner herein is in occupation of the subject property, which clearly established the AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 11 fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were never in possession of the subject property and in fact, the Commissioner appointed by the Special Tribunal has categorically given report that plot No.35 claimed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not existing in the colony and plot of the petitioner herein is existing, which clearly falsifies the case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the Special Tribunal failed to appreciate the factual aspects as well as report submitted by the Commissioner in proper perspective and has erroneously allowed the LAOP filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
15. Learned senior counsel for petitioner had further contended that as per Section 10 of the Act, 1982, initial burden lies on the applicant, who approaches the Special Court to establish prima facie title to the subject property. It is settled principle of law that only on satisfactory discharge of initial burden of proving prima facie case by the applicant, the burden shifts to the respondents to prove that the land has not been grabbed by them. It is further contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to prove prima facie title to the subject land. Without AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 12 there being any material to prove the title and existence of subject property, the Special Tribunal has came to erroneous conclusion that petitioner herein is the land grabber.
16. Learned senior counsel further contended that as per Section 2(d) of the Act, 1982, the 'land grabber means a person who commits land grabbing for illegal possession of the land. Further, as per Section 2(e) of the Act, 1982, 'land grabbing' means every activity of grabbing of any land by a person or group of persons without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take illegal possession of such land. However, in the present case, there is no averment to that effect in the application filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Special Tribunal without properly appreciating the purport of Section 2(d) & (e) of the Act, 1982, has come to erroneous conclusion and allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
17. Learned senior counsel further contended that Special Tribunal discarded the report submitted by the Commissioner on erroneous and improper reasons. He further contended that the Commissioner has considered the layout plan of the year 1969, AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 13 which was relied upon by the petitioner herein as well as layout prepared in the year 1992 relied upon by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which does not have any attestation of the Executive Officer. The Commissioner on due survey of land and proper examination, has come to a conclusion that plot of petitioner herein is located and identified and whereas, the plot No.35 being claimed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not exist. However, the Special Tribunal erroneously disbelieved the report submitted by the Commissioner, which is per se perverse. Learned senior counsel further contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to the evidence and material placed on record and the commissioner's report, therefore, same requires interference by this Court and liable to be set aside.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 had contended that the Special Tribunal has rightly allowed the LAOP filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It is further contended that petitioner herein failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Special AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 14 Court and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. It is further contended that Ex.B2 under which petitioner herein purchased the subject plot No.68 claimed by him does not contain survey numbers and further, Ex.B12- rectification deed (marked subject to objection) is unregistered. Therefore, the Special Tribunal has rightly not considered the same as it is not registered document. In view of non- registration, Ex.B12 has no legal force and same cannot be considered to have rectified the entries in Ex.B2 insofar as survey number is concerned.
Consideration:
19. Perusal of record would disclose that the petitioner herein claimed ownership on the subject property i.e., plot No.68 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.04.1984, whereas respondent No.2 is claiming title over the plot No.35 i.e., subject property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 03.06.1998 and respondent No.3 is claiming by virtue of registered GPA-cum- agreement of sale dated 10.07.1998. It is also borne by record that respondent Nos.2 and 3 earlier filed the suit in O.S.No.791 of 1998 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 15 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North) Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.09.2003 with a specific observation that petitioner herein is in possession of the plot. Having suffered the judgment dated 15.09.2003 in O.S.No.791 of 1998, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed LAOP No.719 of 2004 alleging that petitioner herein has started digging pits for construction of pillars taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit. Initially, LAOP No.719 of 2004 was dismissed by the Special Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2009, however, on appeal being filed by the respondent No.2 vide LGA No.6/2010, the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Special Court with a direction to appoint a Commissioner to identify the subject property and dispose of the same afresh according to law.
20. On remand, the Special Court vide order dated 19.01.2012, directed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to survey the land and submit a report. Pursuant to the orders of the Special Tribunal dated 19.01.2012, the Assistant Director AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 16 appointed Sri Kasinath, Inspector of Survey as Commissioner to conduct survey the subject land and the Inspector submitted his report dated 06.07.2012, wherein the Commissioner reported that plot No.68 belongs to the petitioner herein is identified and whereas the plot belonging to the respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e., plot No.35 is not existing in the colony.
21. Perusal of the Commissioner's report dated 06.07.2012 would disclose that the Inspector along with Mandal Surveyor as well as the parties visited the Sy.Nos.393 and 394 and found residential houses were existing in the said area. The Inspector verified the layout plans submitted by both the parties and found that layout plan submitted by the petitioner herein was dated 26.02.1969, which was approved by the Executive Officer, Alwal Grampanchayat and whereas the layout submitted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was prepared on 22.03.1992, however, the same does not contain attestation of the Executive Officer, Alwal Grampanchayat. The Inspector further observed that as per the layout submitted by the petitioner herein, as many as 123 plots were made, and whereas as per the layout submitted by the AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 17 respondent Nos.2 and 3, only 62 plots were made. Therefore, there is a clear discrepancy in layouts submitted by the petitioner herein and the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Inspector has indentified the plot No.68 admeasuring 200 square yards in which pucca house has been constructed bearing premises No.1-39-843 (new) corresponding to old No.31-6-68 as per registered deed document No.1139/1984 dated 16.04.1984.
22. The Inspector further found that the plots as per layout plans submitted by the petitioner herein and the respondent nos.2 and 3 are not tallied. He further observed that plot No.35 being claimed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not be identified and the same does not exist. However, the Special Tribunal has discarded Ex.C1-report submitted by the Commissioner and found that layout plans relied upon by the petitioner has not been placed on record and the Commissioner failed to identify plot No.35 claimed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thus, disbelieved the report submitted by the Commissioner.
23. It is relevant to note that the Commissioner conducted survey in the presence of both the parties and copies of layout AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 18 plans submitted by both the parties were considered. The Commissioner on due survey had identified plot No.68 and further observed that plot No.35 claimed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not be identified and the same is not existing. The Commissioner, who was examined as CW.1, was cross-examined at length, however, there is no trustworthy evidence elicited in the cross-examination.
24. It also relevant to note that as per Section 10(1) of the Act, 1982, the applicant has to prima facie establish the title and thereafter the burden shifts on the respondent that he has not committed any land grabbing. In the present case, the applicant who is respondent No.2 before the Special Court has failed to establish prima facie title over the subject plot and therefore, the petitioner herein is not obligated to show that she is not the land grabber. Section 2(d) of the Act, 1982 defines 'land grabber', which means a person who commits land grabbing for taking illegal possession of the land and as per Section 2(e) of the Act, 1982, 'land grabbing' means, activity of grabbing of any land by a AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 19 person without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take illegal possession of such land.
25. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gouni Satya Reddi v. Government of A.P. 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement.
26. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of A.P. 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person can be called a 'land grabber' for the acts, such as, (a) unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, snatched forcibly, violently or unscrupulously occupies any land, (b) without any lawful entitlement, (c) with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands and subsequent action with respect to subject land. Therefore, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that a person can be called as 'land grabber' when he/she occupies any land forcibly, illegally, violently without any legal entitlement. 1 (2004) 7 SCC 398 2 (2002) 3 SCC 258 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 20
27. In the present case, petitioner herein claiming title under registered sale deed dated 16.04.1984, whereas the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are claiming title over plot No.35 vide registered sale deed dated 03.06.1998 and the registered Agreement of Sale-cum- GPA bearing document No.1764/98, dated 10.07.1998, which are subsequent documents. In the light of report submitted by the Commissioner vide Ex.C1, wherein the Commissioner identified the plot belonging to the petitioner herein with pucca house as well as specific observations in O.S.No.791 of 1998, petitioner herein has been in continuous occupation of the subject land by virtue of the registered sale deed.
28. Therefore, in the light of above discussion and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner herein cannot be termed as land grabber.
Conclusion:
29. In the light of above discussion and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, the judgment passed by the Special Tribunal is unsustainable and requires interference of this AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 21 Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the judgement dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Special Tribunal in LGOP No.719 of 2004 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 24.01.2025 KKM AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.20213 of 2016 22 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.20213 OF 2016 Date: 24.01.2025 Kkm