Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Sharada Bai And Anr. vs Chairman, The Special Court Under A.P. ... on 25 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)ALD105, 2003(1)ALT467
JUDGMENT Dalva Subrahmanyam, J.
1. The writ petitioners in WP No. 29675 of 1997, who are respondents 1 and 2 in LGC No. 162 of 1994, filed the writ challenging the common judgment passed in LGC No. 162 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short' the Special Court') and to set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The writ petitioners in WP No.29712 of 1997, who are respondents 1 and 2 in LGC No. 133 of 1995, filed the writ challenging the common judgment passed in LGC No. 133 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court and to set aside the said judgment as illegal and arbitrary.
3. The writ petitioners in WP No.2305 of 1998, who are respondents 3 to 7 in LGC No. 162 of 1994, filed the writ challenging the common judgment in LGC No. 162 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court and to set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary.
4. Since the above three writ petitions arise under a common judgment delivered by the Special Court in LGC 162 of 1994 and LGC No.133 of 1995 dated 15-10-1997, they are disposed of together by a common order.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The applicant Smt. Shamsunnisa Begum filed LGC No. 162 of 1994 under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') to declare the respondents 1 to 8 as land grabbers and to evict them in an extent of 15 guntas of land forming part of S. No. 30 of Taranagar village. The applicant contended that the application schedule land forming part of S. No. 30 Taranagar village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the total extent of which is Ac. 3.19 guntas. Out of the said extent, Chakaii Ramaiah owned an extent of Ac. 1.29 guntas of land and Katika Balaji owned an extent of Ac. 1.30 guntas. Out of total extent of Ac. 1.29 guntas of land, the said Chakaii Ramaiah sold an extent of Ac. 1.00 to the applicant and 0.20 guntas to one Jahangir and retained the balance of 0-09 guntas of land. Katika Balaji sold an extent of 0.30 guntas of land to Smt. K. Sharada Bai, the 1 st respondent and Ac. 1.00 to H. Padmini Bai, 2nd respondent. The applicant originally filed OS No. 87 of 1988 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West and South for perpetual injunction and the said suit was transferred to the Special Court and it was numbered as LGC 133 of 1995. The Special Court tried LGC 162 of 1994 and LGC No. 133 of 1995 together and delivered a common judgment. When the injunction petition was pending, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed in OS No.87 of 1988 and he inspected the land in S. No. 30 and got a sketch map prepared with the assistance of Inspector of Survey and filed his report.
6. The respondent No.7 filed counter contending that R3 to R7 are the bonafide purchasers from the respondents 1 and 2 and since the date of their purchase they are in possession and enjoyment of their properties including the application schedule land and they perfected their title by adverse possession. The respondents 3 to 7 filed OS No. 124 to 129 of 1988 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy District and interim injunction was granted and subsequently CMA was filed and CRPs were also filed. The applicant having failed in her negotiations with the respondents 3 to 7 for an approach road to her plot from the main road, filed the present land grabbing case with mala fide intention. The respondents 3 to 7 are not land grabbers and hence the petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 8th respondent remained ex pane.
7. On the above pleadings, the Special Court framed and settled the following issues for trial.
1. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the schedule land?
2. Whether the rival title set up by the R1 and R2 over the petition schedule land is true and valid?
3. Whether respondents have perfected their title to the petition schedule land by adverse possession as pleaded by them?
4. Whether respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2 (d) and 2 (e) of the Act?
5. To what relief?
8. Common evidence was recorded in both the cases and on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B14 were marked. The Court examined CW1 and Ex C1 to C8 were marked. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is the owner of 127 1/2 guntas of land forming part of S. No. 30 as shown in the sketch of the Commissioner and that the respondents were declared as land grabbers and they are directed to deliver the possession so far as LGC No. 162 of 1994 is concerned and permanent injunction was granted to an extent of 27 1/2 guntas of land in S.No.30 against the respondents in LGC No. 133 of 1995.
9. Aggrieved against the common judgment, the respondents 1 and 2 in LGC No.162 of 1994 filed WP No.29675 of 1997 assailing the common judgment in LGC No.162 of 1994 and to set aside the same on the ground that the Special Court committed error in relying on Exs.A4 and A5. The Special Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the disputed 12 1/2 guntas of land belong to Smt. Shamsunnisa Begum. The Special Court committed error in not properly appreciating the report of the Commissioner who found that there is an open area of 20 guntas on Eastern side of the petitioner's land and open land of 3 guntas on Northern side of the petitioner's land and 4 guntas on Southern side including road portion. The writ petitioners challenged that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the civil dispute. The writ petitioner also challenged the provisions of Section 10 of the Act as illegal and void since it violated the fundamental rights conferred under Article 21 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
10. The writ petitioners in WP No. 29712 of 1997 challenged the common judgment in LGC No. 133 of 1995 and prayed to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and to set aside the said judgment on the ground that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and the provisions with regard to the presumptions are violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Special Court committed error in relying on Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. The Special Court failed to note that PW2 was not tendered for cross-examination. The Special Court committed an error in ignoring Ex.B3 to Ex.B5. For the above said reasons, the judgment in LGC No.133 of 1995 may be set aside.
11. The respondents 3 to 7 in LGC No. 162 of 1994 filed WP No. 2305 of 1998 praying to set aside the judgment in LGC No. 162 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the Special Court has no power to adjudicate the dispute between the parties since the respondents are not the land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) and 2 (e) of the Act. The Special Court erred in relying on Ex.A4 and A5 and failed to appreciate that PW 2 was not tendered for cross-examination. The Special Court committed error in finding that the respondents 3 to 7 grabbed the land of the petitioners and that they are liable to be evicted. It is stated that the writ petitioners never grabbed the land and they are bona fide purchasers. For the above said reasons, the judgment in LGC No. 162 of 1994 may be set aside.
12. Though the writ petitioners challenged Section 10 of the Act as un-constitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, but at the time of arguments, they did not press the said point and advance argument on that point. Therefore, the validity of Section 10 of the Act does not arise for consideration.
13. Now the following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether the avermetns in the application would not attract the provisions under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application?
2. Whether the Special Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioners-respondents are land grabbers and liable to be evicted, and if so, writ petitioners are liable to be allowed?
Point No. 1 : The applicant filed application under Section 8 (1) of the Act. The Legislature enacted the Special Act so as to deal with the cases of land grabbing. Section 2(e) defines the land grabbing as follows:
"(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 land, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licence agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such land, 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, or unauthorised structures; and the term "to grab land" shall be construed accordingly":
Section 2 (d) defines the land grabber as follows:
"(d) "land grabber" means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction or unauthorised structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts, and also includes the successors-in-interest:"
14. The averments in the application are that the applicant is the original owner of the application schedule property and that her land was grabbed by the respondents. The initial burden is on the applicant to prove her right and title to the property and once the burden is discharged, the burden shifts on the respondent to prove that he has not grabbed the property and he is in possession of the property in his own right. The Legislature has enacted the Act with a view to adjudicate the disputes between the parties whenever there is land grabbing. The Constitution of Special Courts is not illegal and therefore the Special Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 8(1) of the Act and the Special Courts are empowered to adjudicate the disputes and the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the Special Courts. For the above said reasons, the Special Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application and therefore the argument that the Special Court has no jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
15. Point No. 2 : The applicant filed LGC No. 162 of 1994 to declare the respondents as land grabbers and to recover 0-15 guntas of land. It is an admitted fact that the land was purchased by the applicant and the respondents 1 and 2 forming part of S. No. 30 of Taranagar village. S. No. 30 was not sub-divided. The land purchased by the applicant including the application schedule land is in S.No.30/AA and the land purchased by R1 and R2 bear subdivision 30/A. The applicant purchased the property from Ramaiah and S. Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 15-2-1979 which is marked as Ex. A1, which is part of S. No. 30. The sub-division is not mentioned, but only the boundaries are mentioned on a reference made under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report along with a sketch showing the application schedule lands and extract of pahani. As per the said extract, Shamsunnisa Begum, whose khata number is 41, is the pattedar to an extent of Ac. 1.00 of land in S. No. 30/AA and Chakali Ashaiah is a pattedar to an extent of 0-09 guntas of land in the said S.No.Ex.B2 is a registered sale deed dated 25-7-1979 executed by K. Baloji in favour of R2 for an extent of Ac. 1.00 of land in S.No. 30/A. Ex.B1 is a registered sale deed executed by K. Baloji in favour of K. Hari Mohan, husband of R1, for an extent of 0-30 guntas of land in S. No. 30/A. The report of the Mandal Revenue Officer coupled with Ex. B1 and B2 and the pahani would prove prima facie right and title of the applicant Smt. Shamsunnisa Begum to an extent of Ac. 1.00 of land in S. No. 30/AA and the husband of R1 and 2 are owners to an extent of Ac. 1.30 guntas of land in S. No. 30/A. The Special Court gave a finding that the application schedule land lies in S. No. 30/A relying on the report of the Commissioner which would prove that the applicant is in possession of 27 1/2 guntas of land and the adjoining 12 1/2 guntas of land forming part of S. No. 30, which is claimed by the applicant and is adjoining to the said land. The respondents contended that there is a boundary wall in between 27 1/2 guntas of land and 12 1/2 guntas of land. But, as per the written statement filed by the respondents, it was constructed after the disputes arose between the parties. The Special Court disbelieved that the said compound wall has been in existence from 1969-70. The Special Court took pains to tabulate the extent of lands sold by the respondents 1 and 2 and the area left out by them for roads and totalling the said area, came to the conclusion that the respondents have grabbed 12 1/2 guntas of land which is adjoining the 27 1/2 guntas of land owned by the applicant. The Special Court elaborately discussed in the judgment and tabulated the extents of land sold by the respondents under different sale deeds and rightly came to the conclusion that the respondents are land grabbers. The Special Court has not committed any error in relying on Ex.A5. We have gone through the judgment of the Special Court and we are satisfied that it is a well considered judgment and the Special Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the respondents grabbed 12 1/2 guntas of land which they are liable to deliver to the applicant. For the above said reasons, the Special Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioners are land grabbers and that they grabbed 12 l/2 guntas of land and they are directed to deliver the said extent to the applicant. The Special Court has also not committed any error in granting permanent injunction, which is a consequential relief. For the above said reasons, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the findings recorded by the Special Court are just and proper and hence all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, WP Nos. 29675 of 1997, 29712 of 1997 and 2305 of 1998 are dismissed and in the circumstances, no order as to costs.