Telangana High Court
Smt. S. Kanthamma, R.R.Dist vs Smt Boyini Sarojini Dasaradha Ram, Hyd ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
L.G.A. Nos.27 and 33 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Since, both these Appeals arise out of the very same
order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Both these appeals are directed against the order,
dt.08.10.2012 in LGOP.No.623 of 2001 on the file of the
Special Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the Tribunal').
3. The appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017 is the 6th
respondent in LGOP.No.27/2017, and the appellant in
LGA.No.33 of 2017 is third party to the aforesaid LGOP, who
after obtaining leave from this Court vide order dt.24.11.2016
in WP.No.25147 of 2016, had filed the said appeal.
Brief facts of the case:
4. The 1st respondent in both the appeals is the petitioner
before the Tribunal, who had filed the above LGOP claiming
that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing
Plot No.28 admeasuring 502 sq. yards in survey No.69 & 70
situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered
Sale Deed, dt.11.07.1967 from one Syed Abdul Rahman.
5. It is the further case of the 1st respondent/petitioner that
intending to construct a house on the subject plot, she had
applied for permission, and it was approved vide
endorsement, dt.10.06.1985; that on the basis of the
aforesaid permission, when she had commenced construction
work, one Smt V.Ratnamala, who is 3rd respondent herein/2nd
respondent in LGOP, along with some antisocial elements
entered into the subject plot claiming to be the absolute
owner of part of land in plot No.28 admeasuring 202 sq.
yards; that on the entry of the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent
being objected to by the 1st respondent herein, the 3rd
respondent/2nd respondent had filed a suit vide
O.S.No.254/1985 against the 1st respondent/petitioner
seeking perpetual injunction; and that the said suit was
dismissed by the Civil Court on 16.07.1991.
6. It is the further case of the 1st respondent/petitioner that
during the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed against her by
the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent
herein/1st respondent in LGOP had executed two registered
sale deeds in respect of plot No.28 i.e., 200 sq. yards in favour
of 3rd respondent/2nd respondent and 300 sq. yards in favour
of 4th respondent/3rd respondent.
7. It is the further case of the 1st respondent/petitioner that
the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent on the suit filed by her
getting dismissed, had sold the land admeasuring 200 sq.
yards in plot No.28 in favour of the 4th respondent/3rd
respondent, who in turn sold the said land to 6th respondent
in LGA.No.33 of 2017/5th respondent in LGOP and appellant
in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6th respondent in LGOP.
8. Thus, the 1st respondent/petitioner contended that all
the other respondents and appellants herein have acted
malafidely without any legal entitlement by executing sale
deeds in respect of land belonging to her, and thus, have
grabbed her land, and are therefore liable to be declared as
land grabbers under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act').
9. On the 1st respondent/petitioner filing the aforesaid OP
before the Tribunal, notices were issued to the respondents
therein i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1 to
4 in LGOP and also to 5th respondent in LGOP and appellant
herein/respondent No.6 in LGOP. However, respondent Nos.2
to 5 herein remained ex-parte.
10. The appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017, who is 6th
respondent in the LGOP, had contested the said OP by filing
counter, claiming that the OP filed by the 1st respondent
herein is not maintainable and that the provisions of the Act
are not applicable.
11. By the counter affidavit, the appellant in LGA.No.27 of
2017/6th respondent in LGOP contended that the land being
claimed by the 1st respondent/petitioner is situated in plot
No.28, and as per the approved layout, the plot of 6th
respondent/5th respondent is bearing No.25 admeasuring 100
Sq yards, having purchased the same under a registered sale
deed, dt.26.03.1984, from one K.Swarajam and is situated in
Sy Nos.69 and 70 with a house existing therein bearing House
No.1-68/1 of Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, and
thus, the above OP filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner lacks
merits and sought for dismissal of the said OP.
12. Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues
were framed by the Tribunal in the above LGOP:
i. Whether the petitioner is the owner and possessor
of the petition schedule property?
ii. Whether the respondents are the land grabbers of
the petition schedule property?
iii. To what relief?
13. Before the Tribunal, 1st respondent/petitioner got
examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On
behalf of the respondents, no one was examined nor any
documents marked before the Tribunal.
14. Based on the evidence adduced by both the parties, the
Tribunal allowed the underlying LGOP partly declaring the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in LGOP
as land grabbers and dismissed the OP against 5th and 6th
respondents in the OP.
15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal,
the 6th respondent in the OP had filed appeal vide LGA.No.27
of 2017 and a third party to the said OP filed appeal vide
LGA.No.33 of 2017.
16. The appeal vide LGA.No.33/2017 is filed by a third party,
after obtaining leave to file the present appeal vide order
dt.24.11.2016 in WP.No.25147 of 2016, claiming to have
purchased part of the land along with house constructed
therein, being claimed by the 1st respondent herein/petitioner
in LGOP, under a registered sale deed, dt.29.10.1998, from
5th respondent herein/4th respondent in LGOP, and not being
made as party, though a necessary party to the aforesaid
proceedings, and an order in respect of the subject property
purchased by her having been obtained behind her back.
17. Heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, Smt A.Anasuya, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in both the appeals,
and perused the record.
Case of the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017//6th
respondent in LGOP:
18. On behalf of the appellant/6th respondent it is contended
that as the Court below had declared the 4th respondent
herein/3rd respondent as land grabber, the same directly
affects the rights of the appellant/6th respondent in OP, who
had purchased the land admeasuring 150 sq. yards vide
registered sale deed, dt.13.08.1990 from the 4th
respondent/3rd respondent.
19. It is further contended that the Court below ought to
have seen that the 1st respondent/petitioner was never in
possession of the subject property being claimed by her,
much less the land to an extent of 150 sq. yards purchased
by the appellant/6th respondent from the 4th respondent/3rd
respondent under a registered sale deed in the year 1990.
20. It is further contended by the appellant/6th respondent
that though she has engaged a counsel, she did not contest
the matter, due to the compromise entered into with the 1st
respondent/petitioner and having paid an amount of
Rs.27,000/- towards consideration, but the 1st
respondent/petitioner failed to withdraw the case in respect of
the land in possession of the appellant/6th respondent.
21. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant/6th
respondent that since, the 1st respondent/petitioner having
received an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards consideration for
the land in her possession, she cannot be declared as land
grabber.
22. On behalf of the appellant/6th respondent it is further
contended that the 1st respondent/petitioner though agreed to
sell the land in possession of the appellant/6th respondent
having purchased the same from the 4th respondent/3rd
respondent pursuant to the compromise entered, failed to
abide by the said compromise and is seeking to dispossess
the appellant/6th respondent from the subject land on the
ground that respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1
to 4 in LGOP are declared as land grabbers of the subject
land, part of which is in possession of the appellant/6th
respondent.
23. On behalf of the appellant/6th respondent it is further
contended that the Tribunal though has not declared the
appellant/6th respondent as a land grabber, however, had
held that since, the appellant/6th respondent had failed to
produce any registered document executed in her favour by
the 4th respondent/3rd respondent to an extent of 150 sq.
yards in plot No.28 in survey Nos.69 & 70 situated at
Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, cannot make any claim to the subject land.
Case of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party to
LGOP:
24. It is contended by the appellant/third party that she has
purchased the house bearing municipal No.10-1-98/3/A
standing on the land admeasuring 220 sq. yards bearing plot
No.28 under a registered sale deed, dt.29.10.1998 from the
5th respondent/4th respondent; that on purchase of the
aforesaid property, the same has been mutated on to her
name in municipal records on 09.11.1998, and she is in
possession and enjoyment of the same since then.
25. On behalf of the appellant/third party it is further
contended that the 1st respondent/petitioner without making
her as party to the underlying OP filed by her had obtained an
order in respect of her property, behind her back, and is
seeking to dispossess her from the subject property, which
has been mutated on to her name on 09.11.1998.
26. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant/third
party that the report, dt.27.06.2009 filed by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short 'the Rules')
would go to show that the land being claimed by the 1st
respondent/petitioner cannot be identified unless and until
the layouts are furnished, and thus, contended that the
subject plot bearing No.28 being claimed by the 1st
respondent/petitioner is not identifiable and is not localized.
27. On behalf of the appellant/third party it is also
contended that since, the appellant/third party has
purchased the house property, the same would be outside the
scope of the application of provisions of the Act, as the same
deals with only lands that are grabbed and not in respect of
houses existing on such lands, and thus, the order of the
Tribunal to the extent of the land, on which her house bearing
No.10-1-98/3/A stands, cannot be sustained.
Consideration by the Court:
28. Though it is the case of the appellant in LGA.No.27 of
2017/6th respondent in LGOP that she having purchased the
subject property from the 4th respondent/3rd respondent in
LGOP vide registered sale deed, dt.13.08.1990, since, the
appellant's vendor having been declared as a land grabber by
the Tribunal, the appellant/6th respondent cannot claim any
better title to the subject property.
29. Further, though the appellant/6th respondent claimed of
having entered into a compromise with the 1st
respondent/petitioner in LGOP, during the pendency of the
said OP, inasmuch as the said aspect was not even pleaded
before the Tribunal, the said plea now urged before this Court
cannot be accepted.
30. It is also worthwhile to note that the vendor of the
appellant/6th respondent i.e., 4th respondent/3rd respondent
having remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the
appellant/6th respondent having failed to adduce any
documentary evidence in order to justify her title to the
subject property validly, it is not open for the appellant/6th
respondent to claim to be in legal possession of the subject
property or that the Tribunal not considering the relevant
documents and considering irrelevant documents to hold the
appellant/6th respondent's vendor to be a land grabber,
consequently affecting the right of the appellant/6th
respondent to the subject property.
31. Having regard to the dicta laid down by the Apex Court,
the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6th respondent in LGOP
is to be considered as successor in interest under the Act and
for the said reason, the claim of the appellant/6th respondent
that the Tribunal having not declared her as land grabber she
cannot be dispossessed from the subject land to an extent of
150 sq. yards, cannot be accepted as a valid and sustainable
claim.
32. Since, the appellant/6th respondent is only a successor
in interest claiming subject property having purchased from
the 5th respondent/4th respondent, who is being declared as
land grabber, she would have to be considered as successor
in interest and would be liable for all the actions of her
vendor.
33. The Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. vs.
Mandal Revenue Officer and Ors1while reiterating the view
in Konda Lakshmana Bapujivs.Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors 2 has held that:
"25....A combined reading of Clauses (d) and (e) would
suggest that to bring a person within the meaning of
the expression "land grabber" it must be shown that:
(i)(a) he has taken unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily,
snatched forcibly, violently or unscrupulously any land
belonging to the Government or a local authority, a
religious or charitable institution or endowment,
including a wakf, or any other private person; (b)
without any lawful entitlement; and (c) with a view to
illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter or
create illegal tenancies or lease and licence
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 occupation of unauthorised
structures; or (ii) he has given financial aid to any
person for taking illegal possession of lands or for
construction of unauthorised structures thereon; or (iii)
he is collecting or attempting to collect from any
occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other
charges by criminal intimidation; or (iv) he is abetting
the doing of any of the abovementioned acts; or (v) that
he is the successor-in-interest of any such persons."
34. Insofar as the claim of the appellant in LGA No.33 of
2017/third party to LGOP with regard to the non-
maintainability of petition filed by the 1st
MANU/SC/8007/2007
MANU/SC/0066/2002
respondent/petitioner before the Tribunal in respect of house
existing on the land being claimed as grabbed, it is to be
noted that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Safiya Bee v. Mohd.
Vajahath Hussain 3 wherein it was held as under:
"11. The basic question to be considered is whether the
High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant's
application under Section 7A of the Act was not
maintainable before the Special Tribunal "as the
property in dispute was a building with its
appurtenant land". The Andhra Pradesh Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 was enacted to
prohibit the activity of land grabbing in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and to provide for matters connected
therewith.....
Section 2(c) defines 'land' as hereunder:
'land' includes rights in or over land, benefits to arise
out of land and buildings, structures and other things
attached to the earth or permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth
The above definition of 'land' makes it clear that the
expression 'land' includes "buildings, structures and
other things attached to the earth". In view of such
inclusive definition of 'land', grabbing a building
attached to the earth amounts to land grabbing for the
purposes of this Act. Hence, the High Court erred in
(2011) 2 SCC 94
holding that the Act applies to the land but not to the
buildings. The High Court was clearly wrong in holding
that "if an application is filed seeking possession of
building along with its appurtenant land, because the
building in question is in existence on the land and is
surrounded by the vacant land, it cannot be said that it
is a case of grabbing of land". In our view, if a building
along with the land on which it stands is the subject
matter of the application under Section 7A of the Act,
such application is maintainable before the Special
Tribunal. The distinction drawn by the High Court
between "building with appurtenant land" and "land
along with building" is artificial and hyper-technical
and it defeats the very purpose of the legislation. In the
light of the definition of 'land' under Section 2(c) of the
Act, both the above descriptions practically mean the
same thing vis-�-vis 'land grabbing' and there is no
logic or justification for drawing a distinction between
them. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the
application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable
before the Special Tribunal.
35. Though, the claim of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of
2017/third party to LGOP with regard to the applicability of
the Act to the standing building on the land alleged to be
grabbed has to fail, it is pertinent to note that the
appellant/third party has purchased the subject property
under a registered sale deed, dt.29.10.1998 from the 5th
respondent/4th respondent and the said property stood muted
on to the name of the appellant/third party in the municipal
records by following the due process of law.
36. The 1st respondent/petitioner having filed the underlying
OP to declare the 4th respondent also as land grabber in
respect of the subject property in the year 2001 claiming it to
be open land, however did not choose to verify as to the
existing position of the property, which if only was done would
have shown the existence of a building in the subject property
and further verification would have shown that the said
building is standing in the name of the appellant in
LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party to LGOP.
37. The 1st respondent/appellant having filed the OP before
the Tribunal without arraying the appellant/third party as
party respondent, however, even after the Mandal Revenue
Officer submitting his report, dt.27.06.2009, noting as to the
existence of a building in the subject property, did not take
steps to verify as to who is in possession of the subject land
and the building thereon and make them as party
respondents to the said proceedings, which was pending as
on the date of the said report.
38. Admittedly, the appellant/third party having purchased
the subject property with the building standing therein having
municipal number, is in possession of the same since the date
of purchase in the year 1998, and that the 1st
respondent/petitioner proceeded against the appellant's
property without making her as party respondent and without
the notice of the OP being issued to her, cannot seek
enforcement of the order of the Tribunal against the subject
property in possession of the appellant/third party.
39. The Apex Court in Phatru Patel vs. Revenue Divisional
Officer 4 while dealing with a similar situation has held as
under:
"9. A bare reading of abovequoted Rule makes it
evident that the Special Court has to give notice in
Form III-A to the persons known or believed to be
interested in the land. The case of the appellants is
that they had purchased the lands from Hukumlal
between 1980 and 1987 i.e. prior to initiation of case
under the provisions of the 1982 Act before the Special
Court by Respondents 3 to 5. Under the circumstances,
this Court is of the opinion that it was the duty of the
Special Court to issue notices to the appellants in Form
III-A and hear them. The High Court has failed to
consider the question whether the appellants were
served as required by law. The impugned judgment
does not indicate that the High Court had examined
the plea raised by the appellants that they had
acquired interest in the lands prior to filing of the case
by Respondents 3 to 5. Except stating that the
appellants are/were claiming through Hukumlal, no
other contention raised in the petition was examined
(2010) 15 SCC 77
by the High Court. As the record does not indicate that
any notice as contemplated by Rule 8 of the Rules was
served by the Special Court on any of the appellants, it
will have to be held that the judgment passed by the
Special Court in the application filed by Respondents 3
to 5 is illegal and void. Therefore, the appeal will have
to be accepted."
40. Thus, since, the 1st respondent/petitioner in LGOP is
claiming the property in possession and enjoyment of the
appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party as her property,
the 1st respondent/petitioner ought to have made her as party
to the underlying LGOP filed before the Tribunal in terms of
the proviso to Section 7(A)(5) of the Act read with Rules 8 and
9 of the Rules, and in the absence of the 1st
respondent/petitioner joining the appellant/third party as
party respondent to the said proceedings, the order of the
Tribunal to the extent of the property in possession and
enjoyment of the appellant/third party herein would be illegal
and a void order.
41. In the light of the aforesaid analysis and discussion, this
Court is of the considered view that -
i) the Appeal vide LGA.No.27 of 2017 filed by the
appellant/6th respondent as against the order,
dt.08.10.2011 in LGOP.No.623/2001 does not suffer
from any infirmity or error for being interfered by
this Court in the appeal, and thus, LGA.No.27 of
2017 is devoid of merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
ii) the Appeal vide LGA.No.33 of 2017 filed against the
very same order, dt.08.10.2011 in
LGOP.No.623/2001, is allowed and the said order
dt.08.10.2011 is set aside to the extent of the
subject property admeasuring 220 sq. yards with
building standing thereon bearing House No.10-1-
98/3/A in plot No.28 of survey No. 69 & 70 situated
at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District.
42. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
__________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
Dt. 28 .05.2025.
gra
