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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(2004) 7 SCC 398
(2002) 3 SCC 258
AKS,J & LNA,J
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
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
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
