Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bahagyah Bai And Ors. vs The Mandal Revenue Officer And Anr. on 24 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(4)ALT640, 1998 A I H C 317, (1997) 4 ANDHLD 196 (1997) 4 ANDH LT 640, (1997) 4 ANDH LT 640
Author: P. Venkata Rama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkata Rama Reddi
ORDER P. Venkata Rama Reddi, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dt.13-3-1996 passed by the Special Tribunal under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (Chief Judge, City Civil Court). The learned Chief Judge directed the petitioner-plaintiff to produce his evidence before the respondents-defendants are called upon to adduce their evidence.
2. The petitioner herein filed the suit - O.S. No. 3375 of 1986 (on the file of the V Asst. Judge, City Civil Court) for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents etc., from interfering with the possession of plaintiff in respect of the suit land measuring Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No. 129 (old) and Sy. No. 403 (new) situate at Sheikpet village, Banjara Hills. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants contending that the land in question is a Government land, that the plaintiffs were bent upon encroaching the Government land and they were taking steps to sell it away illegally. Before the suit came up for trial, the defendants contended before the V Assistant Judge on whose file the case was pending that in view of the act of grabbing of Government land, the case falls within the purview of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and it is triable only by the Special Tribunal. The learned Assistant Judge held that the plaintiff encroached over the suit land and that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of the provision contained in Sub-section 6 of Section 7 of the Act. The plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before Special Tribunal. This order passed on 17-7-1990 was modified by a subsequent order dt.5-3-1991 directing the transfer of the suit to the Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing. On transfer to the Special Tribunal, the case was numbered as O.P.
3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that before the Special Tribunal, the status of the respondents herein, who alleged grabbing of the suit-schedule land by the plaintiffs is that of plaintiffs or petitioners and the respondents have to adduce evidence first in view of Order XVIII Rule 1. It is contended that Under Section 10 of the Act, the initial burden to show that the petitioners are land grabbers is on the respondents and that the respondents should adduce evidence to establish that prima facie, the petitioners are land grabbers. I find force in this contention. Though, the array of parties in the suit has not been changed after transfer to the Special Tribunal for land grabbing cases. It cannot be doubted that the position of the respondents in the suit is really that of a petitioner or complainant. It is only on the allegation of the respondents that the land was grabbed by the plaintiffs in the suit that the suit was transferred. The complaint of land grabbing is from the defendants in the suit (respondents herein). Section 10 which deals with burden of proof puts the matter beyond doubt. The initial burden to show that the petitioners herein are land grabbers is on the Government at whose instance the suit was transferred to the Special Tribunal. It is only thereafter that the onus shifts. In such a situation, it is only proper and logical that the respondents (defendants in the transferred suit) are called upon to lead evidence in the first instance. It may be that, depending upon the facts and circumstances, the respondents might be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence after the petitioner's evidence. But, it remains the duty of the respondents-defendants to lead the evidence initially.
4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned Assistant Judge has already given a prima facie finding that the Government Land was encroached upon by the plaintiffs in the suit, on a consideration of the pleadings and documents and that itself is sufficient to hold that the respondents discharged the initial burden cast on them. But, the order passed by the Civil Court for the purpose of considering the limited question whether the suit ought to be transferred is really not relevant. The Special Tribunal cannot be expected to give effect to that finding without an independent examination of its own. It is the Special Tribunal which has to consider whether the petitioners committed land grabbing within the meaning of the Act and it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that matters. The Special Tribunal has therefore the power and duty to call upon the person who complains of land grabbing by the other side to discharge the initial burden of proof cast on him by adducing evidence in the first instance. I do not find anything in the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader which lays down a principle supporting the contention of the learned Government Pleader. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge cannot be sustained in law. It is, therefore, set aside and the CRP is allowed. The respondents shall be called upon to lead evidence and the case be proceeded with accordingly. I make no order as to costs.