Telangana High Court

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K.Krishnam Raju on 21 April, 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.19369 OF 2009
ORDER :

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

17.04.2009 in L.G.C.No.20 of 1999 passed by the Special

Court under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad

(for short, 'Special Court').

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Assignment

appearing for the petitioner-State, Sri P.Rajam Raju,

learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Ms. Samhitha

Nimmala, learned counsel, representing Sri Vivek Jain,

learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.1, 5, 6, 10,

13 and 14.

3. Petitioner herein filed LGC No.20 of 1999 against the

respondents herein alleging that respondents grabbed the

land admeasuring 6484 sq.mtrs in TS No.1 Block-B, Ward

No.9 and TS No.1/1/C/1, Block-H, Ward No.9, correlated

to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad, which is classified as 'Government Poramboke'.

4. In the concise statement, petitioner averred that

Shaikpet village of Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District AKS,J & LNA,J

was formerly a Sarf-e-Khas village and after merger of

Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli, the administration

of the same was transferred to Diwani; that according to

Sethwar, there were 353 survey numbers in the said

Village; that Sy.No.129 consists of an extent of

Acs.3288.02 guntas, which is classified as 'Government

land' at Banjara Hills; that during 1331 Fasli, one

supplementary sethwar was issued sub-dividing Sy.No.129

into ten sub-divisions as Sy.Nos.129/1 to 129/10; that

Sy.No.129/1 consists of Acs.3097.39 gts., and balance

extent of Acs.190.03 gts., was transferred to Sy.Nos.129/2

to 129/10; that during 1334 Fasli, another supplementary

sethwar was issued deleting Sy.No.353 and in 1346 Fasli,

one more supplementary sethwar was issued deleting sub-

divisions of Sy.No.129 i.e., Sy.Nos.129/1 to 129/10 and 52

new survey numbers were added from 353 to 404 in

respect of total extent of land i.e., Acs.3288.02 gts.; and

after issuance of supplementary sethwar, Sy.No.129/1

corresponding to Sy.No.403 consists to an extent of

Acs.3079.37 guntas.

AKS,J & LNA,J

4.1. It was further averred that Sarf-e-Khas regime

conducted revised survey and in the year 1352 Fasli, the

lands in old Sy.Nos.129/11 to 129/87 are shown as "patta

land'' as per correlation statement (Vasool Baqui Register);

that during the years 1965 and 1970, town survey was

conducted under A.P. Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 (for

short, 'the Act, 1923) and the above land was correlated to

T.S.No.1/1/C/1, Block-H, Ward No.9 and T.S.No.1,

Block-B, Ward No.9 and the same was published in

Hyderabad Gazettee No.22, dated 18.04.1977.

4.2. It was further averred that application schedule land

falls in the above survey numbers and correlated to

Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, which is classified as

'Government Poramboke' situated at Road No.2, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad; that Government earlier filed Land

Grabbing Case Nos.72/1991 and 145/1985 against Manga

Devi and Rajendra Prasad, respectively, for illegal

occupation of the government land in the above TS Nos.

and both the cases were allowed by the Land Grabbing

Court; that in the month of January, 1998, revenue

officials have conducted physical verification and noticed AKS,J & LNA,J

that the government lands were encroached by the

respondents therein. Therefore, LGC No.20 of 1999 was

filed to declare the respondents as 'land grabbers' and

further, a direction to deliver vacant possession of the land

along with all benefits they have accrued to the

Government.

5. Respondent No.1 filed counter resisting the

application and further, averred that the application

schedule property forms part of Plot No.102, admeasuring

Acs.2.15 gts., of Shaikpet village, which was originally a

Sarf-e-khas property and the same was sold to one Abdul

Samad by Jubilee Hills Municipality vide File No.164 of

1352 Fasli and the said sale was confirmed by the Sarf-e-

khas authority through Letter No.244/2 dated 24th

Isfandar 1352 Fasli and said Abdul Samad sold the said

plot No.102 to T.V.Ramachandraiah under registered sale

deed bearing document No.571/68, dated 24.02.1968 and

in turn, T.V.Ramachandraiah sold a portion of land

admeasuring 5406 square yards to one Pradeep Kumar

Lohade under registered sale deed bearing document

no.2172/70, dated 14.10.1970; that the said Pradeep AKS,J & LNA,J

Kumar Lohade divided the said land into plots by duly

obtaining layout permission from the Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) and sold an extent of 552

square yards with H.No.8-2-120/112/A/8 in favour of her

husband-Mantena Suryanarayana Raju under registered

sale deed bearing document No.2048/82 dated

21.04.1982.

5.1. It was further averred that when MCH failed to

release the final layout to the vendor of the application

schedule property, he filed W.P.No.4924/1984 before the

erstwhile High Court of A.P., and the same was allowed

vide judgment dated 26.10.1984 and ultimately, MCH has

released the final layout in the year 1984; that respondent

No.1 obtained permission for construction from the MCH

vide sanctioned permit No.67/100, dated 12.02.1985 and

as per the proceedings No.120/12/A/2/8/83, dated

04.04.1985, the land falls under residential zone; that the

lands are in continuous occupation and possession of

private parties since 1942 and the Government was never

in possession nor exercised any ownership rights over the

application schedule property at any point of time; that AKS,J & LNA,J

Government has not conducted proper town survey as per

the Act, 1923; and that no notice has been served on her or

her predecessors-in-title under Sections 9 and 10 of the

Act, 1923. Therefore, the respondents are not bound by

orders of Survey Officers. Town Survey Record is not

implemented in the revenue records under Section 84 of

the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the

District Collector has not taken steps for implementation of

town survey record till date.

5.2. Respondent No.1 further averred that she has paid

house tax to the Municipal Authorities upto date and that

application schedule property is treated as private property

by the Government and non-agricultural land tax was also

paid. Therefore, it is unfair on the part of the petitioner to

claim that the land under occupation of the respondents is

a 'government land' and that the respondents are 'land

grabbers'.

5.3. It was also averred that all the decisions and orders

passed by the erstwhile Sarf-e-khas authorities under the

regime of HEH the Nizam was binding on the present

Government and the Government has no jurisdiction to AKS,J & LNA,J

question or reopen the matter and the lands have already

been transferred by the HEH, the Nizam, who was the

owner and custodian of the property prior to the merger of

Sarf-e-khas into Diwani in favour of Abdul Samad in the

year 1352 Fasli. It was further averred that Government

has never raised any objection or claimed the application

schedule property at any point of time within the statutory

period of limitation and the possession of the respondents

and her predecessors-in-title over the application schedule

property has been open, continuous and uninterrupted

and therefore, they have perfected title by adverse

possession and thus, prayed to dismiss the application.

6. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations

made in the concise statement and has raised similar pleas

as that of respondent No.1 and further, contended that she

purchased the house bearing No.8-2-269/3/A

admeasuring 510.38 sq.yards situated in Plot No.101 of

erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad from one Mir Wajid Ali and others under

registered sale deed bearing document No.4412/85, dated

10.08.1985 and another house bearing No.8-2-269/3/1 AKS,J & LNA,J

admeasuring 312.66 square yards from the same vendors

under registered sale deed bearing document No.301/1987

dated 11.02.1987 and both the houses are situated in Plot

No.101 erstwhile Jubilee Hills, Municipality, Shaikpet,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

6.1. Respondent No.2 further averred that Plot No.101

admeasuring Acs.2.03 gts., of Shaikpet village was

originally a Sarf-e-khas property and the same was sold by

the Sarf-e-khas authorities to one Azamuddin Ansari and

the sale was confirmed through letter dated 8th Isfandar

1352 Fasli. It was further averred that her vendors applied

for exemption from the provisions of the Urban Land

Ceiling Act and the Special Officer, Competent Authority,

ULC, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad vide proceedings

No.E1/10200/76, dated 21.12.1981 declared her vendors

as joint owners and possessors and thereafter, her vendors

have obtained layout permission vide permit No.140/76,

dated 31.08.1987; and that he has constructed a building

by obtaining permission from the MCH, vide permit

No.175/65/87, dated 25.11.1987.

AKS,J & LNA,J

7. Respondent Nos.7 & 9 adopted the counters filed by

the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 10. Respondent No.15

adopted the counter filed by respondent No.6.

8. Respondent No.5 in the counter averred that her

husband-Dr.M.S.Raju is the absolute owner of House

No.8-2-120/112/A/8 admeasuring 552 square yards

situated in Plot No.102, erstwhile Jubilee Hills

Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having

purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing

document No.2942/82 dated 21.04.1982 from its lawful

owners and possessors.

9. Respondent No.6 in the counter averred that he is

absolute owner of H.No.8-2-120/122/A/13 admeasuring

356.2 sq.yards situated in Plot No.102 of erstwhile Jubilee

Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,

having purchased the same from its lawful owner under

registered sale deed bearing document No.5945/85, dated

12.12.1985.

10. Respondent No.8 in the counter averred that he and

his wife have purchased an extent of 475.53 sq.yards AKS,J & LNA,J

bearing H.No.8-2-120/112/A/14 situated in Plot No.102 of

erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad from its lawful owner under registered

sale deed bearing document No.5990/85, dated

14.08.1985.

11. Respondent No.10 in the counter averred that he is

the absolute owner and possessor of H.No.8-2-293/82/

A/101, admeasuring 748 square yards situated in Plot

No.101 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from

its lawful owner under registered sale deed bearing

document No.2873/91, dated 19.09.1991.

12. Respondent Nos.11 and 12 in the counter averred

that they purchased an extent of 552 sq.yards bearing

H.No.8-2-120/112/A/11 situated in Plot No.102 of

erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad, from its lawful owner under registered

sale deed bearing document No.2019/93, dated

28.04.1993.

AKS,J & LNA,J

13. Respondent No.14 in the counter averred that they

purchased an extent of 552 sq.yards bearing

H.No.8-2-120/112/A/8 situated in Plot No.102 of erstwhile

Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad from its lawful owner under registered sale deed

bearing document No.2942/82, dated 21.04.1982.

14. Basing on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Special Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property ?

2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding ?

3) Whether the respondents in any event, prescribed title by adverse possession ?

4) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982 ?

5) In case of success, whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for wrongful possession and profits as claimed ?

6) To what relief ?

15. To substantiate its claim, the applicant-State

examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On

behalf of respondents, respondent Nos.5, 15, 6, 2, 11, 10,

8, 15 and father of respondent No.1 were examined as

RWs.1 to 9, respectively and Exs.B1 to B98 were marked.

AKS,J & LNA,J

16. The Special Court, on due appreciation of pleadings

of both the parties, oral and documentary evidence placed

on record, answered issue No.1 in favour of applicant and

held that applicant has established its title to the subject

lands. On issue No.2, the Special Court has held that the

rival title set up by the respondents is not true and valid.

The Special Court, while coming to above conclusions, has

recorded the following observations:

"174. In view of the above discussion, Exs.B17, B18, B39 to B43 are admissible in evidence. Those documents show that plot no.102 was allotted to Abdul Samad. The documents filed by the respondents establish that plot no.102 was allotted to on an application to Abdul Samad. There is no proof that Government demarcated the allotted plot and Government issued patta in his favour. Therefore, the respondents failed to establish their title to the application schedule land. Abdul Samad sold total extent of land to T.V.Ramachandraiah under registered sale deed Ex.B2. thereafter, T.V.Ramachandraiah sold a portion of land to Pradeep Kumar Lahode under Ex.B3 to an extent of 5406 square yards. Pradeep Kumar Lahode made a layout and sold plots. MCH approved the layout and also gave permissions for construction of houses to the respondents, who purchased plots from Pradeep Kumar Lahode. It is established that the respondents are purchasers of the respective extents as stated in the concise statement. On the principle of AKS,J & LNA,J

'tacking' the respondents have perfected title to the application schedule property by adverse possession. Application schedule land is merged with the Government. Respondents failed to establish title to the application schedule land.

17. On issue No.3, the Special Court has held that

respondents have perfected their title by adverse

possession and on issue No.4, it has held that the

respondents are not 'land grabbers'. The Special Court

has recorded following observations:

"In the case the respondents established possession to the application schedule land. The respondents also established that the land has been in continuous possession for more than 30 years on the doctrine of tacking and in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in WP No.27888/1995 which is marked as Ex.B1 dated 09.02.2001 the respondents are entitled to claim that they are not land grabbers. The respondents are in possession as purchasers from the persons who made a layout and the layout was approved by the Municipal Corporation. Hence, it cannot be said that they are in unlawful possession. More over since 1352 Fasli the applicant was not in possession of the land. The respondents are in possession under bona fide claim of right title to the property. There is no act of land grabbing on the part of the respondents.

193. Silence on the part of the applicant for more than 50 years gives an impression to the general AKS,J & LNA,J

public that it is not government land and that it is a private land. RW.3 deposed that with a mala fide intention the MRO, Golconda, had issued Exs.B2 notice under Section 7 of APLE Act dated 07.09.1992. He gave reply to the said notice. Thereafter the matter was carried to Hon'ble High Court in WP No.7930 of 1995; the High Court had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Government not to interfere with the lawful possession of the respondents. The applicant carried the matter in Writ Appeal and the High Court dismissed said Writ Appeal with a direction to the respondents therein to file an appeal against the orders passed by the MRO before the appropriate authority and accordingly, appeal has been preferred but no orders have been passed till date and in the mean time, the present LGC has been filed by the applicant.

194. From the documentary evidence produced, it is clear Government issued notice demanding payment of NALA Tax in 1995. The government issued notice under Section 7 of LE Act in 1992 to the respondent. No steps have been taken to evict the vendors of the respondents who are in occupation of the land since a long time prior to 1992. This case is filed in 1999 that too after LGC 72/91 was allowed. The MRO, who is examined as Pw.1 deposed that he was not aware whether any orders were passed for implementation of town survey. The revision survey was conducted in 1347 Fasli and it was completed in 1352 Fasli. It was not implemented in revenue records. As revenue records did not reveal that it is a Government land and the MCH have granted AKS,J & LNA,J

permission for the layout made by the vendors of the respondents, and there were two sales prior to their purchase, the respondents purchased plots in a layout. Therefore, they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. It cannot be said that these respondents created documents to grab the land. As there were two sales prior to their purchase, they purchased the plots. Hence, it cannot be said that with an intention to grab the land they purchased it. Hence, they are entitled to claim title by adverse possession even if Abdul Samad had no title. If a person occupied the land with an intention to grab the land by creating documents, he cannot claim adverse possession basing on sale deed. There was no intention on the part of the respondents to grab the land at the time they purchased the land. Having satisfied that Abdul Samad was in possession of the land since 1352 Falsi, and sold the land and subsequently two sale transactions took place, the respondents purchased the land. Hence, even if title of Abdul Samad is defective, they can claim title by adverse possession. In any event, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief as it failed to establish possession for more than 30 years. In any event the applicant cannot contend that the respondents are land grabbers and that they are not entitled to claim title by adverse possession."

18. Aggrieved by the judgment dated: 17.04.2009, of

Special Court, the applicant-State filed present writ

petition.

AKS,J & LNA,J

19. Learned Government Pleader for petitioner principally

contended that Special Court did not appreciate the

evidence and material placed on record, more particularly,

Exs.A1 to A12 and has come to erroneous conclusion that

respondents are not land grabbers. He further contended

that once Special Court held that respondents claimed to

be the successors-in-interest of an allottee from the

Sarfekhas authorities, the burden is on the respondents to

show that the allotment of land in favour of their

predecessors-in-title is true and valid, however,

respondents failed to discharge their burden. It is also

contended that though Special Court held that

respondents have no title to the land in question, however

erred in concluding that respondents have perfected their

title by adverse possession, which is per se illegal; that

Special Court ought to have considered that the plea of

adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law, and

a person who claims adverse possession should show the

nature of possession and also, whether the factum of

possession was known to the real owner and the same is

open and undisturbed.

AKS,J & LNA,J

20. Learned Government Pleader further contended that

the Special Court failed to consider the fact that when the

respondents have claimed title of the application schedule

property through registered sale deeds, they cannot turn

round and take a plea of adverse possession. He further

contended that the special Court failed to consider the fact

that except the sale deeds to prove their title or their

predecessors' title, the respondents did not produce any

material to prove their possession over the schedule

property since 1942. He further contended that the

documents filed by the respondents in proof of their

possession are subsequent to the year 1982 and no

document is filed to prove their prior possession or their

predecessors and this aspect was not properly construed or

appreciated by the Special Court.

21. Learned Government Pleader for Petitioner - State

relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mandal

Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and another 1,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

(2010) 2 SCC 461 AKS,J & LNA,J

"In this context, it is necessary to remember that it is well-nigh impossible for the State and its instrumentalities including the local authorities to keep everyday vigilance/watch over vast tracts of open land owned by them or of which they are the public trustees.

No amount of vigil can stop encroachments and unauthorised occupation of public land by unscrupulous elements, who act like vultures to grab such land, raise illegal constructions and, at times, succeeded in manipulating the State apparatus for getting their occupation/possession and construction regularised. It is our considered view that where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection. Any laxity in this regard may result in destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and give an upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers."

22. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents

contended that respondents' predecessors-in-title

purchased the property from erstwhile Sarf-e-khas

authorities and the said sale was confirmed and in view of

merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli, the said

transactions/alienations are not open for scrutiny at this

point of time. It is further contended that title and

possession of the application schedule property can be

traced from the year 1942 and the respondents, on the AKS,J & LNA,J

strength of Exs.B1 to B98, have proved their continuous

and uninterrupted possession and, therefore, the Special

Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner herein. Learned counsel further contended that

the respondents have purchased the application schedule

property through registered documents and their

predecessors-in-title have obtained layout permission from

the MCH and the respondents have constructed the houses

by duly taking permission from the MCH and have also

been paying taxes, which clearly proved the continuous

possession of the respondents and therefore, application

filed by the applicant is not maintainable.

23. Learned counsel for respondents further contended

that the purported survey conducted by the Government is

contrary to the Act, 1923 and was conducted without

notice to the respondents or their predecessors and

further, the said survey was not implemented under

Section 84 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, and

therefore, town survey has to be construed as not come

into operation.

AKS,J & LNA,J

24. Learned counsel for respondents further contended

that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India while adjudicating the land grabbing case is very

limited and the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate

Court to re-appreciate the evidence and the High Court can

interfere with the judgment of the Special Courts/

Tribunals only where, (i) relevant material is excluded and

irrelevant material is considered, (ii) there is an error

manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, such

as, when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard

of the provisions of law and (iii) grave injustice or gross

failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

25. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for

respondents relied upon the following decisions:

       i)      Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan 2;
       ii)     Y.Jangamma     and others v. Special Court under

A.P.land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad and others 3;

iii) Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. V. Collector, Hyderabad District and another 4;

iv) B.N.Manga Devi and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 5;

1963 SCC Online SC 24

2009 SCC Online AP 854

2001 SCC Online AP 397

2011 SCC Online AP 442 AKS,J & LNA,J

v) Mohd.Siddiq Ali Khan and another etc. v. Shahsun Finance Ltd. and another 6;

vi) Gouni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P., and others 7;

vii) Arif Noorul Hassan and others v. State of A.P., Revenue and others 8;

viii) The State of A.P. v. Smt. G.Venkamma and others 9

ix) Tadi Surya Rao Vs. Dr. Gurubhavatula Ramakrishna Rao and another 10

26. In Syed Yakoob (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that the findings of fact as a result of appreciation of

evidence cannot be reopened or questioned by writ

jurisdiction; that an error of law which is apparent on the

face of record can be corrected by a writ of certiorari, but

not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be; that

a finding of fact can be corrected by a writ if it is shown

that in recording such a finding, the Tribunal erroneously

refused to admit the admissible evidence, erroneously

admitted inadmissible evidence; that if a finding of fact is

based on no evidence, it amounts to error of law and can

be corrected by a writ of certiorari.

27. In Tadi Surya Rao (9 supra), a Division Bench of

erstwhile High Court of A.P., held that the findings of the

2005 SCC Online AP 187

(2004) 7 SCC 398

2007 SCC Online AP 356

2001 (3) APLJ 357 (HC)

1996(2) APLJ 257 (HC) AKS,J & LNA,J

Special Court based on proper appreciation of evidence are

final and that any enquiry by the High Court of a nature

akin to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is forbidden.

28. In Y.Jangamma (3 supra), a Division Bench of

erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under:

"Therefore, though there is a tendency on the part of the Lawyers to argue writ petitions filed against the orders of Special Court as appeals, we cannot consider the writ petition as an appeal. The judicial review is permissible to a limited extent when i) the relevant material is excluded and irrelevant material is considered ii) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice is occasioned thereby."

29. In Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. (4 supra), a

learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held

as under:

"A bare reading of scheme of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 would make it clear that the survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the lands and fixation of boundaries. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detail enquiries with regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the lands. It is neither the object nor the scheme of the said Act. There is no presumption that every entry made in the TSLR shall be presumed to be true until contrary is AKS,J & LNA,J

proved as in the case of entries made in the record of rights under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971. It is not a record of right. There is no such provision in the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923."

30. In B.N.Manga Devi (5 supra), a Division Bench of

erstwhile High Court of A.P., held that entries contained in

Town Survey Land Record cannot be the fountainhead for

doubting the right, title and interest of any person in

respect of any land.

31. In Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan (6 supra), a Division

Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under:

"That unless the allegations made in the application satisfy and attract the ingredients of "land grabber"

and "land grabbing" as provided for under Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Act, mere repetition of words "land grabbing" would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless that statement or allegations satisfies both the ingredients -- the factum as well as the intention. As has been held in Shalivahana Builders' Case (2003 AIHC 2291) (supra), that an act of land grabbing involves "taking of any land belonging to Government, etc., or any other private person unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, either forcibly, violently, unscrupulously or otherwise but without any lawful entitlement. Taking possession of the land without any lawful entitlement thereto is the sine qua non to hold a person to be a land grabber. It may be noted, to make out a case that a person is a land grabber the applicant must aver and prove both the ingredients -- the factum as well as the intention. Unless a person unauthorisedly and without any lawful entitlement thereto enters or intrudes into a land forcibly or otherwise, he cannot be held to be a AKS,J & LNA,J

land grabber. The emphasis is on taking possession without any lawful entitlement."

32. In Gouni Satya Reddi (7 supra), 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.

33. In Arif Noorul Hussain (8 supra), the Division Bench

of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held that an application

under Section 8(1) of the Act, should proceed on

specifically averred premise that the applicant was in

possession all along or till a particular time and further the

averment to the effect that there is a disposition (sic.

Dispossession) by the respondents thereunder in the

recent past without any right, title and interest as such.

The absence of details in regard to any of these aforesaid

aspects is quite fatal and the applications have to be

rejected.

Consideration:

34. The petitioner claimed that application schedule

property was part of old Sy.No.129/1, which correlates to

Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, AKS,J & LNA,J

which is classified as 'Government Poramboke'; that

originally, the lands are part of Shaikpet village of Shaikpet

Mandal, Hyderabad District, which was formerly a Sarf-e-

Khas village and after merger of Sarf-e-Khas in 1358 Fasli,

the Administration of the same was transferred to Diwani

and that subject land and others lands were shown as

patta lands as per correlation statement. Further, the town

survey was conducted during the years 1965 and 1970 as

per the Act, 1923 and the above land is correlated to

T.S.No.1/1/C/1, Block-H, Ward No.9 and T.S.No.1, Block-

B, Ward No.9 and the same was published in Hyderabad

Gazettee No.22, dated 18.04.1977; that respondents are

the encroachers of the application schedule land; that

earlier Land Grabbing Case Nos.72/1991 and 145/1985

were filed against the illegal occupiers, who traced out their

title to Abdul Samad and both the cases were allowed by

the Special Court.

35. It is also the case of Petitioner that the respondents

are tracing the title to Abdul Samad and, therefore, in the

light of decision of the Special Court in LGC Nos.72/1991

and 145/1985, the respondents have to be declared as AKS,J & LNA,J

land grabbers. Petitioner has placed on record Exs.A1 to

A12, which are attested copy of District Gazettee, Extracts

of TSLR, copies of judgments in LGC.No.72/1991 and

LGC.No.9/2000, pahani for the year 1981-82, copy of

acknowledgment of notice under Survey and Boundaries

Act and attested copy of Hyderabad District Gazette, etc.

36. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that

originally, Abdul Samad became the owner of Acs.2.15

guntas of land forming part of Sy.No.102 and the same was

purchased from Jubilee Hills Municipality vide File No.164

of 1352 Fasli and the same was confirmed by the Sarf-e-

Khas authority through letter No.244/2, dated 24th

Isfandar 1352 Fasli. Subsequently, Abdul Samad sold the

lands to T.V.Ramachandraiah, who in turn, sold an extent

of 5406 square yards to Pradeep Kumar Lohade; that

Pradeep Kumar Lohade obtained layout permission and

sold small extents to the respondents under various

registered sale deeds from the year 1982. The respondents

further claimed that they constructed houses in their

respective plots by duly obtaining permission from the

MCH; that they and their predecessors-in-title have been in AKS,J & LNA,J

open, continuous, uninterrupted possession since their

purchase and thus, they have perfected their title by

adverse possession. It is also claimed that the application

is barred by limitation since the Government never raised

any objection or claimed the subject lands, within the

statutory period of limitation. The respondents have filed

Exs.B1 to B98, which include registered sale deed executed

in favour of Abdul Samar, registered sale deeds executed in

favour of T.V.Ramachandraiah and Pradeep Kumar

Lohade and subsequent registered sale deeds, layouts,

municipal permissions for construction, water connections,

electricity bills, property tax bills, sanctioned layout plan,

challans, etc.

37. Since the respondents have not preferred Appeal,

there is no necessity to adjudicate the title of the

application schedule lands. Writ Petition is filed principally

aggrieved by the conclusion of the Special Court that the

respondents have perfected their title by way of adverse

possession. Petitioner contended that plea of adverse

possession is mixed question of fact and law and a person

who claims adverse possession should establish the same.

AKS,J & LNA,J

38. It is the case of the Petitioner that earlier Government

filed LGC Nos.72 of 1991 against the vendor of the

respondent i.e., Abdul Samad and the same was allowed by

the Special Court vide order dated 29.09.1995. However,

the order passed in LGC No.72/1991 was set aside by this

Court vide judgment dated 09.02.2001 in W.P.No.27888 of

1995 and claim of the Government was rejected in respect

of the said lands. Similarly, LGC No.9 of 2000 filed for

another extent in the same Town Survey number was

allowed by the Special Court vide judgment dated

09.04.2003, however, the judgment was set aside by this

Court in W.P.No.9401 of 2003 vide order dated 30.04.2007

applying ratio laid down in the judgment passed in

W.P.No.27888 of 1995.

39. It is also evident from record that aggrieved by the

order in W.P.No.27888 of 1995, the State Government has

preferred an appeal in Appeal (Civil) No.4258 of 2001

before the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, as the parties

agreed to regularize their property, the appeal was

dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2008 with a specific

direction. The State Government has also challenged the AKS,J & LNA,J

order passed in WP No.9401 of 2003 before the Hon'ble

Apex Court vide Civil Appln.No.3481 of 2008 and the same

was dismissed for non-prosecution as the matter was

settled out of the Court and, therefore, the orders passed

by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.27888 of

1995 and W.P.No.9401 of 2003 hold good and the findings

recorded by the High Court that respondents have

perfected their title by adverse possession and their

possession being tacked to Abdul Samad is applicable to

the present case as well.

40. The respondents have placed voluminous documents

on record in proof of their possession, which can be traced

to Abdul Samad from the year 1942, who purchased the

land from Jubilee Hills Municipality. The respondents have

also placed registered document executed by Abdul Samad

in favour of T.V.Ramachandraiah and subsequent sale

deed in favour of Praveen Kumar Lohade and thereafter, to

the respondents herein. It is also evident from the record

that a lay out was obtained from MCH and permissions for

construction of houses were obtained, structures were

raised and property tax, water tax, electricity bills etc., are AKS,J & LNA,J

being paid, therefore, possession of respondents can be

traced to 1942.

41. It is the specific case of the respondents that the

Government was never in possession of the application

schedule property nor claimed the lands within the period

of limitation. It is relevant to refer to the observation of the

Special Court which reads as hereunder:-

"The government issued notice under Section 7 of Lands Encroahment Act in 1992 to the respondent. No steps have been taken to evict the vendors of the respondents who are in occupation of the land since a long time prior to 1992.

Having satisfied that Abdul Samad was in possession of the land since 1352 Falsi, and sold the land and subsequently two sale transactions took place, the respondents purchased the land. Hence, even if title of Abdul Samad is defective, they can claim title by adverse possession.""

42. The Special Court, by referring to oral and

documentary evidence placed on record by both the

parties, categorically held that respondents have perfected

their title by way of adverse possession on the principle of

'tacking'. The applicant-State except filing the revenue

records, TSLRs and pahani, has not placed any material AKS,J & LNA,J

evidencing its possession over the subject land and on the

other hand, the respondents have placed voluminous

documents in proof their continuous and uninterrupted

possession for more than 30 years. Therefore, this Court

does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the

judgment passed by the Special Court with regard to title

of respondents by way of adverse possession.

43. Let us now examine the aspect whether the

respondents can be termed as 'land grabbers'. It is relevant

to refer to the definition of Land Grabber defined under

Section 2 (e) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,

1982, which reads as under:

"S.2 (e). "land grabbing" means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and AKS,J & LNA,J

occupation, of unauthorised structures; and the term "to grab land" shall be construed accordingly;"

44. It is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government

of A.P. 11, wherein 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.

45. In the present case, the respondents are in

occupation of application schedule property based on the

registered sale deeds. The respondents have obtained

permission for construction, raised structures and have

been paying property tax, water and electricity bills, etc

and their title can be traced to 1942.

(2002) 3 SCC 258 AKS,J & LNA,J

46. It is relevant to refer to certain observations of the

Special Court in the impugned judgment, which are

extracted as hereunder:

"The respondents are in possession as purchasers from the persons who made a layout and the layout was approved by the Municipal Corporation. Hence, it cannot be said that they are in unlawful possession. More over since 1352 Fasli the applicant was not in possession of the land. The respondents are in possession under bona fide claim of right title to the property. There is no act of land grabbing on the part of the respondents."

47. As per section 2 (e) of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

Act, a person is said to be a 'land grabber', when he/she

occupies any land forcibly, illegally, violently without any

legal entitlement. In the present case, the petitioner failed

to establish that occupation of application schedule lands

by the respondents comes within ambit/definition of land

grabbing. It is also appropriate to refer to observation of

Special Court that the claim of respondents with regard to

right and title is bona fide and that they are in occupation

of application schedule property based on the registered

sale deeds and that there is no act of land grabbing on the

part of respondents.

AKS,J & LNA,J

48. The Special Court on due appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence placed on record has categorically

observed that the respondents have acquired title over the

application schedule properties by way of adverse

possession by applying principle of tacking and further

observed that the respondents have been in open,

continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than 30

years. Further, the respondents are in possession of the

application schedule property on the strength of the

registered sale deeds and therefore, they cannot be termed

as 'land grabbers' in terms of Section 2(e) of the Land

Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. Further, the judgment passed

by the Special Court in LGC Nos.72 of 1991 and 9 of 2000

was set aside by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in

W.P.No.27888 of 1995 and 9401 of 2003, respectively, and

the appeals preferred by the State Government before the

Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed/closed and therefore,

the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in

W.P.Nos.27888 of 1995 and 9401 of 2003 are binding on

the petitioner-State Government. Hence, in view of the

aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in AKS,J & LNA,J

view of the above settled legal position, the respondents

cannot be termed as 'land grabbers'.

49. Insofar as the scope and power of High Court under

Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, it is

relevant to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in

State of A.P., v. Prameela Modi and others 12, wherein it

is held that High Court in exercise of its power under

Article 226 cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and

indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence.

50. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A.P. v.

P.V.Hanumantha Rao and another 13, held that against

the decision of the Special Court, no appeal is provided and

only remedy of the aggrieved party is to approach the High

Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of

India. It is further held that remedy of writ petition

available in the High Court is not against the decision of

the Subordinate Court, Tribunal or Authority, but it is

against the decision-making process. It is also held that

right of the High Court to interfere with orders of

(2006) 13 SCC 147

(2003) 10 SCC 1216 AKS,J & LNA,J

Subordinate Courts and Tribunals is limited, where

(i) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of

the proceedings, such as, when it is based on clear

misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of law and

(ii) grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned

thereby.

51. In Y.Amruthabai v. Special Court under A.P.land

Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 14, a Division Bench of this

Court, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of A.P. v. P.V.Hanumantha Rao and

another 15, held as under:

"36. It is also evident from the record that the Special Court neither refused to admit admissible and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned findings. Further, there is nothing on record to substantiate that Special Court has acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or violated the principles of natural justice. There is no manifest error apparent on the face of proceedings to issue a writ of certiorari as prayed for. Further, the Special Court neither acted without jurisdiction nor acted in excess of it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned

2022 SCC Online TS 1801

(2003) 10 SCC 121 AKS,J & LNA,J

judgment by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India..."

52. Thus, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that the

scope and power of High Court under Articles 226 or 227

of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High

Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and

indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The

High Court can interfere with the decision of the Special

Court only where there is an error manifest and apparent

on the face of the proceedings and where it resulted in

gross injustice or it occasioned in gross failure of justice.

Conclusion:

53. In the light of above discussion and legal position, in