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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 2 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 3 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 4 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 5 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 6 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 7 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 8 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 9
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 10 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 11
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 12
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 13 '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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 14 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 15 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 16
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 17
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: 1
(2010) 2 SCC 461 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 18 "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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 19 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 20
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;
2 1963 SCC Online SC 24 3 2009 SCC Online AP 854 4 2001 SCC Online AP 397 5 2011 SCC Online AP 442 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 21
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 6 2005 SCC Online AP 187 7 (2004) 7 SCC 398 8 2007 SCC Online AP 356 9 2001 (3) APLJ 357 (HC) 10 1996(2) APLJ 257 (HC) AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 22 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 23 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 24 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 25 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 26 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 27 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 28
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 29 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 30 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 31 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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 32 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.
11
(2002) 3 SCC 258 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 33
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 34
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 W.P. No.19369 of 2009 35 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 12 (2006) 13 SCC 147 13 (2003) 10 SCC 1216 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 36 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 14 2022 SCC Online TS 1801 15 (2003) 10 SCC 121 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 37 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 considered opinion of this Court, petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Court warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 38
54. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
55. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:21.04.2025 KKM/dr AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.19369 of 2009 39 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.19369 OF 2009 Date: .04.2025 Kkm/dr