Telangana High Court

V.S.R. Mohan Rao vs The Special Court Under A.P. Land ... on 10 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.73 OF 2007

ORDER :

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

29.11.2006 in L.G.C.No.121 of 1999 passed by the Special Court

under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short,

'Special Court').

2. Heard Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

for respondent No.1 and Sri D.Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.3 to 8.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that originally, Smt.

Kambhampati Savithri Devi (applicant in LGC) filed LGC No.121

of 1999 before the Special Court alleging that writ petitioner

herein (respondent No.1 before the Special Court) has grabbed

land to an extent of 252 square yards forming part of plot No.4 in

Sy.No.10 of Alkapuri colony, Saroornagar village, Ranga Reddy

district (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') and AKS,J & LNA,J

respondent No.9 herein (respondent no.2 before Special Court)

grabbed land to an extent of 195 square yard forming part of

Sy.No.9, corresponding to new Sy.No.9/1/F situated at

Saroornagar village, Ranga Reddy district. That during the

pendency of LGC, said Kambampati Savithri Devi expired and

her legal heirs, who are respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein, were

brought on record as applicant Nos.2 to 7. The applicant before

the Special Court had contended that she is the owner of the plot

No.10A admeasuring 555 square yards forming part of Sy.No.9,

corresponding to new Sy.No.9/1/F of Saroornagar village and

Mandal of Ranga Reddy district having purchased the same

under registered sale deed dated 09.01.1965 from her vendor i.e.,

Valluru Venkateshwarlu and that they were in possession and

enjoyment of the subject property and also raised temporary shed

in the year 1970.

4. The applicant contended that writ petitioner herein

grabbed the land to an extent of 252 square yards in the year 1997

and made construction without permission and claiming that he

purchased the property from the 10th respondent herein AKS,J & LNA,J

(respondent no.3 before Special Court), who in turn purchased

the land to an extent of 194 square yards forming part of Sy.No.10

from 11th respondent herein (respondent No.4 before Special

Court) and 58 square yards forming part of Sy.No.10 from the

12th respondent herein (5th respondent before Special Court) and

in turn, 12th respondent had purchased an extent of 1111 square

yards forming part of Sy.No.10 from the 13th respondent-society

herein (respondent No.6 before Special Court). It is further

contended that writ petitioner herein filed O.S.No.658 of 1998 on

the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, R.R.

District against the applicants before the Special Court for

permanent injunction. The applicant lodged complaint with the

District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, R.R. District on

01.12.1997 and also made complaint to the Commissioner,

L.B.Nagar Municipality against 13th respondent-society herein in

the year 1997 to stop the construction being made by the writ

petitioner herein, however, no action has been taken. Therefore,

the land grabbing case was filed against the writ petitioner herein

and others.

AKS,J & LNA,J

5. The writ petitioner herein filed counter before the Special

Court denying the allegations made by the applicants therein and

contended that he never encroached the land of the applicant,

which is alleged to be situated in Sy.No.9. He further contended

that respondent No.13-society had purchased the land to an

extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Saroornagar village and

Mandal under registered sale deed in the year 1979 and the said

society divided the land into plots and sold to its members and

reserved some part of land for common areas.

6. It is further contended that respondent No.12 purchased

land to an extent of 1111 square yards from the said society under

registered sale deed dated 22.08.1979 and she in turn, sold 555

square yards to 11th respondent under registered sale deed dated

19.07.1982. The 10th respondent has purchased 194 square yards

of land from the 11th respondent under registered sale deed dated

12.10.1987 and also purchased land to an extent of 58 square

yards from 12th respondent under registered sale deed on the

same day. Respondent No.10 constructed a house, which was

allotted H.No.11-13-8/2/A and the writ petitioner purchased the AKS,J & LNA,J

said house from 10th respondent under registered sale deed dated

27.03.1997. It is further contended that while applicant before the

Special Court trying to interfere with his vacant land, he filed a

suit in O.S.No.658 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, East

and North, R.R. district and obtained interim injunction in his

favour. It is further contended that the applicant approached the

Special Court since her attempts to grab the land were failed and

prayed for dismissal of LGC.

7. The respondent No.9 herein filed the counter before the

Special Court denying the allegations made by the applicants and

further stated that she purchased part of plot no.4 admeasuring

389 square yards forming part of Sy.No.10 under registered sale

deed dated 17.07.1987 from the 12th respondent, who in turn

purchased the said property from respondent no.13-society after

verifying and obtaining the layout encumbrance certificate etc. It

is further contended that she constructed a double storied

building after obtaining permission and has been in possession

and enjoyment of the same without any interruption and

therefore, she could not be called as land grabber since she is a AKS,J & LNA,J

bona fide purchaser of the property and finally, prayed to dismiss

the LGC.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed

the following issues:

1. Whether the applicant has title to the application schedule property ?

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

3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982 ?

4. To what relief ?

9. To substantiate the claim before the Special Court, the

applicant got examined her husband as P.W.1, her GPA holder as

P.W.2, her brother as P.W.3 and the Assistant Director, Survey

and Land Records, as P.W.4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A26. On

behalf of the respondents, writ petitioner herein was examined as

RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B16 were marked.

10. The Special Court, on due consideration of oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the LGC vide

judgment dated 29.11.2006 filed by the applicant and directed the AKS,J & LNA,J

respondents therein to vacate the application schedule land

within a period of two months from the date of the order.

11. The Special Court has specifically observed that applicant

could able to prima facie prove his title by producing the

registered documents of the year 1965 and that the respondents

therein failed to produce any rebuttable evidence and answered

the issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the applicant. With regard to

issue No.3, the Special Court has concluded that respondents are

in illegal occupation of the subject property without any

entitlement. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Court,

dated 29.11.2006, present writ petition is filed by the writ

petitioner/respondent No.1 and other respondents did not

challenge the judgment of Special Court.

12. Learned counsel for writ petitioner had contended that writ

petitioner herein is a bona fide purchaser of the land to an extent of

252 square yards under the registered sale deed for valid

consideration along with structures, however, the Special Court

grossly erred in not considering the oral and documentary

evidence placed on his behalf. It is further contended that Special AKS,J & LNA,J

Court has misconstrued the evidence and documents placed on

record and has given undue weightage to the report submitted by

the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal as well as the

report submitted by the Assistant Director, Commissioner of

Survey and Settlement and has thus come to erroneous

conclusion.

13. It is further contended that writ petitioner is in occupation

of the land purchased by him under registered sale deed.

Therefore, he cannot be termed as land grabber and it is contrary

to the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,

1982 (for short, 'Act, 1982'). It is further contended that the

vendor of the writ petitioner has perfected his title by adverse

possession since he has constructed the house and has been in

continuous occupation. It is finally contended that the judgment

passed by the Special Court is perverse and is based on the

assumptions and presumptions and therefore, the same is liable

to be interfered with by this Court and prayed to allow the writ

petition and set aside the impugned judgment.

AKS,J & LNA,J

14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for contesting

respondents herein had contended that the applicant purchased

the subject property under registered sale deed in the year 1965,

forming part of Sy.No.9 of Saroornagar village and mandal,

whereas, admittedly the writ petitioner herein has purchased the

land in Sy.No.10 of Saroornagar village and thus, writ petitioner

is in occupation of the land belonging to the applicants without

any right or title under the guise of the sale deed, which is

executed in respect of Sy.No.10.

15. Learned counsel for contesting respondents had contended

that in the report filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under

Section 6(2) of the Rules, it is categorically stated that the vendor

of the applicant purchased the land to an extent of Acs.83.10

guntas forming part of Sy.No.9 and said land has been shown in

Sy.No.9/1/F as patta standing in the name of the vendor of the

applicant. Learned counsel further contended that Special Court

has appointed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records

as Commissioner as to whether the subject property was in

Sy.No.9 or in Sy.No.10. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land AKS,J & LNA,J

Records submitted his report dated 02.08.2006 along with the

map and in his evidence, he categorically stated that as per the

survey, the subject property is situated in Sy.No.9. Therefore, the

writ petitioner herein has grabbed the land of the applicant,

which is situated in Sy.No.9 under the guise of sale deed, which

pertains to Sy.No.10.

16. Learned counsel for contesting respondents had further

contended that suit filed by the writ petitioner herein in

O.S.No.658 of 1998 for injunction against the contesting

respondents/applicants herein was dismissed by the trial Court

vide judgment dated 21.02.2006 (Ex.A26). It is further contended

that writ petitioner herein has also filed another suit in

O.S.No.748 of 1998 for injunction without impleading the

contesting respondents/applicants and when the applicants

impleaded in the suit, writ petitioner has withdrawn the said suit.

Thus, it is finally contended that there are no merits in the writ

petition and same is liable to be dismissed.

AKS,J & LNA,J

Consideration:

17. Perusal of the record would disclose that the applicant has

purchased the plot bearing No.10A admeasuring 555 square

yards forming part of Sy.No.9 (new Sy.No.9/1/F) of Saroornagar

village, Ranga Reddy district under registered sale deed dated

01.01.1965 from its vendor, whereas respondent No.1/writ

petitioner herein has purchased the land admeasuring 252 square

yards along with structure under registered sale deed dated

27.03.1997, which forms part of Sy.No.10 and thus, the land

purchased by the writ petitioner and the contesting respondents/

applicants is in different survey numbers.

18. In the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer

under Rule (2) of the Rules, it is mentioned that the land

belonging to the vendor of the applicant is situated in

Sy.No.9/1/F, however, there is no clarity as to exact location of

the subject property. Therefore, the Special Court has appointed

Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to verify as to

whether the subject property is situated in Sy.No.9 or in Sy.No.10.

Accordingly, the Commissioner conducted survey and filed his AKS,J & LNA,J

report along with the map, which is marked as Ex.A25. The

Commissioner was also examined as P.W.4 and in his evidence,

he categorically stated that the subject property is situated in

Sy.No.9, which proves that the writ petitioner herein has grabbed

the land belonging to the applicant claiming to be the land

purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 27.03.1997.

19. It is also pertinent to note that writ petitioner herein has

filed suit in O.S.No.658 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

East and North, R.R.District and the same was dismissed by the

trial Court vide judgment dated 21.02.2006 (Ex.A26). Further, the

writ petitioner herein has filed another suit in O.S.No.748 of 1998

against the L.B.Nagar Municipality for injunction without

impleading the applicant and when the applicant got impleaded

as defendant in the said suit, the writ petitioner herein has

withdrawn the said suit, which also negatives the claim of the

writ petitioner herein that he is in occupation of the land in

Sy.No.10 and not in Sy.No.9 and that the LGC filed by the

applicant is misconceived and mala fide. Thus, it can be safely

construed that writ petitioner herein has failed to substantiate his AKS,J & LNA,J

claim that he is a bona fide purchaser and that the land in his

possession is in fact forms part of Sy.No.10 and not Sy.No.9 as

claimed by the contesting respondents/ applicants.

20. It is relevant to refer to the specific observations made by

the Special Court in judgment dated 29.11.2006, which reads as

under:

"24. Having regard to the above discussion as mentioned in paras 14 to 23, there is every reason to draw a conclusion that the applicants have established prima facie title by producing the registered documents of the year 1965 as well as their vendor's registered sale deed and other documentary evidence to show their possession and enjoyment. The revenue records also support the contention of the applicants and the Commissioner, who was examined as P.W.4, also gave a finding that the disputed property is situated in Sy.No.9. The respondents having admitted that they have purchased any rebuttal evidence and the evidence relied by the respondents is not conducive enough to impeach the testimony of documentary as well as oral evidence of the applicants. Therefore, it can be concluded that the applicants established title over the disputed property and the respondents failed to rebut the same and hence, they failed to establish rival title set up by them and these two issues are answered in favour of the applicants."

AKS,J & LNA,J

21. It is apt to refer to Section 10 of the Act, 1982, which reads

as follows:-

"Burden of proof:--

Where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person, the Special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land-grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person."

22. Section 10 of the Land Grabbing Act mandates that the

applicant before the Special Court or Tribunal has to prima facie

prove his title to the application schedule property and once the

initial burden of proving prima facie title is discharged by the

applicant, then the burden would shift onto the respondents

before the Tribunal or the Special Court to prove that he/she is

not a land grabber and he/she is validly holding possession of

the land.

23. In the instant case, as the contesting respondents/

applicants have proved their prima facie title to the subject AKS,J & LNA,J

property by adducing documentary evidence to that effect, the

burden shifted onto the writ petitioner to prove its title to the

subject property, but he failed to prove rival title set up by him

and also that he is in occupation of land in Sy.No.10 and not in

Sy.No.9.

24. Insofar as scope and power of this 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 1 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.

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

P.V.Hanumantha Rao and another 2 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 to the parties before

the High Court is not against the decision of the Subordinate

(2006) 13 SCC 147

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

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 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.

26. In Y.Amruthabai v. Special Court under A.P.Land

Grabbing Prohibition Act 3 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 4 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

2022 SCC Online TS 1801

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

exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India..."

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

the scope and power of this 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. This 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.

28. In the present case, as already stated supra, the Special

Court has come to a categorical conclusion that the contesting

respondents/applicants have established their title over the