Telangana High Court
G. Mukesh Singh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 May, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUISTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.8304 of 2015
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in L.G.C. Sr.No.2687/2012 and be pleased to quash and set aside the order of rejection of L.G.C.Sr.No.2687/2012 dated.12.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Special Court constituted under the A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982 and consequently, be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Special Court to take cognizance of L.G.C.Sr.No.2687/2012 and adjudicate upon the same as per the procedure prescribed by law and be pleased to pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Cout may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel representing Sri G.Dhananjai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7, and perused the record.
2
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had instituted a land grabbing case vide LGC.SR.No.2687 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') inter alia asserting that the respondent Nos.2 to 10 have grabbed the land to an extent of 1,220 sq. yards out of 1,550 sq. yards belonging to the Government by fraudulently obtaining a decree and judgment, dt.21.03.2000 in OS.No.249 of 1994; that in order to secure the aforesaid land back to the government, they had instituted the underlying LGC before the Special Court as being 'any person' entitled to maintain a petition under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare the unofficial respondents herein as land grabbers and to restore the land back to the Government; that the Special Court without considering the scope and ambit of the Act and without even considering that any decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court would be null and void, had rejected the underlying LGC at SR stage itself without even taking the same on record by holding the subject petition as prima facie frivolous and vexatious, which finding of the Special Court it is contended as wholly unsustainable.
3
4. Petitioners further contend that the Special Tribunal also erred in holding that the Government having suffered an adverse order in respect of the subject land in OS.No.240 of 1994, the present petition filed by the petitioners herein would not be maintainable, as the same is hit by the principle of res judicata, without appreciating that the said principle of res judicata cannot be applied at the stage of taking cognizance of the application by the Special Court.
5. It is also the further case of the petitioners that they are not claiming existence of any inter se disputes in respect of the subject land, for him to maintain the present LGC filed by them, but is only seeking to declare the respondents as land grabbers and to restore the land back to the Government.
6. Petitioners further contend that insofar as the land being claimed by the unofficial respondents on the strength of the judgment and decree obtained fraudulently in OS.No.249 of 1994, the same is located elsewhere as the boundaries of the suit schedule property does not match with the boundaries of the land in their occupation and the unofficial respondents, by using the aforesaid judgment and decree obtained fraudulently are seeking to encroach on to the government land in 4 possession of the petitioners, which has been regularized in their favour in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dt.16.02.2008.
7. Petitioners in support of their claim that the underlying LGC as filed by them is maintainable being covered by Section 8(1) of the Act, have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S.Nayak v. A.R.Antulay 1.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents by drawing attention of this Court to the writ prayer would submit that it is not the case of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents having grabbed the land belonging to the petitioners, and on the other hand, is seeking for a relief to declare the unofficial respondents as land grabbers and to restore the land back to the government, which relief, the petitioners are not entitled to seek as being strangers to the property.
9. On behalf of the unofficial respondents, it is further contended that the State having contested the suit vide OS.No.249 of 1994 filed by the father of the unofficial respondents herein to declare him as absolute owners of the 1 AIR 1984 SC 684 5 property bearing Municipal No.10-1-24(Old 15/94/A) situated at Saifabad, Hyderabad, and the said suit having decreed in favour of the father of the unofficial respondents, and the State having not preferred any appeal thereagainst, it is not open for the petitioners now to file the application at the first instance claiming that the subject land belongs to the Government and is to be restored to the Government by declaring the unofficial respondents as land grabbers, and secondly, the order in O.S.No.249 of 1994, having attained finality.
10. It is also contended on behalf of the unofficial respondents that the term 'any person' as used in Section 8(1) of the Act cannot be read in isolation, as if permitting any third party to file application claiming that land belonging to Government having been grabbed, without establishing his interest in respect of the subject property.
11. It is further contended on behalf of the unofficial respondents that since, the Government itself did not take any steps to assail the judgment and decree in OS.No.249 of 1994, the petitioner, who is a third party to the subject land cannot approach the Special Court seeking the land in possession of the unofficial respondents to be restored back to the 6 Government, as what the Government failed to achieve directly cannot be achieved indirectly.
12. On behalf of the respondents it is further contended that the petitioners except claiming that in respect of the land of the Government in their possession having been regularized by the Government under G.O.No.166, did not establish their possession over the land; and that the aforesaid regularization proceedings having been suspended by this Court in the writ petition filed by the unofficial respondents herein, have resorted to filing the underlying land grabbing case against the unofficial respondents herein, only to blackmail them.
13. It is also further contended by the unofficial respondents that the petitioners herein having suffered an injunction against them in a suit filed by the unofficial respondents herein vide I.A.No.1779 of 2009, I.A.No.1809 of 2009 and I.A.No.87 of 2010 in OS.No.2105 of 2009, have adopted this route without having any locus standi.
14. The unofficial respondents further contend that the petitioners herein having been injuncted from interfering with the unofficial respondents' possession over the suit schedule property in OS.No.2105 of 2009, by order dt.17.12.2009, cannot 7 claim to be in possession of the suit schedule property, which is possessed by the unofficial respondents under a registered document of 1328 Fasli.
15. On behalf of the unofficial respondents, it is further pleaded that since, the petitioners have suffered an adverse order in the suit filed by the unofficial respondents herein, they are seeking to agitate the dispute relating to title of the subject property under the guise of the subject land being Government land, even though the Government itself had lost its claim over the subject land.
16. By stating as above, it is contended on behalf of the unofficial respondents that the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate the title of the government to the subject land, when the Government itself did not chose to agitate/establish its title to the subject property.
17. The unofficial respondents further contend that the petitioners are only seeking to resolve the civil dispute in respect of the subject land purchased by the unofficial respondents under registered document by seeking to invoke the provisions of the Act instead of getting the same resolved through a competent Civil Court, which course of action as held 8 by this Court in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan vs Shahsun Finance Limited 2 cannot be permitted, and thus, it is contended that the Civil Court has rightly rejected the underlying LGC at SR stage itself, and hence, seeks for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
18. In reply, on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that in the decree obtained by the petitioners against the Government, no schedule property much less the boundaries are given, and the same is only identified by door number, and as such, the unofficial respondents are claiming the subject land grabbed by them without having any valid title to the same.
19. On behalf of the petitioners it is further contended that if only the LGC filed by them is taken on record, the unofficial respondents would be required to establish that the subject land in their possession is not grabbed by them, but having valid title, by discharging the burden cast on them in terms of Section10 of the Act, and inasmuch as the Special Court having rejected the application filed by the petitioners without taking 2 2005(2) ALD 675 9 cognizance, the unofficial respondents would escape from discharging their burden cast on them to establish their valid title and possession to the subject property, and thus, the petitioners seek for setting aside the order of rejection passed by the Special Court in the underlying LGC.
20. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
21. The core issue, around which the lis in the present Writ Petition revolves is, as to whether a person, who has no claim or interest or title to the property, can file an application under Section 8(1) of the Act, claiming that the persons named in the application have grabbed the land belonging to the Government or a third party, without the concerned authority/person taking any steps by themselves.
22. In order to answer the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to refer to some of provisions of the Act and the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short 'the Rules').
23. Section 2 of the Act provides for definitions and the relevant definitions read as under:
"Sec.2(c) - "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;10
Sec.2(cc) - "land belonging to a private person" means any land belonging to,-
an evacuee;
a military personnel, or any other private individual.
The value or the extent of which or the nature of the evil involved shall be of substantial nature or in the interest of justice required".] Sec.2(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 of 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; 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 occupation, of unauthorised structures; and the term "to grab land"
shall be construed accordingly.
Sec.2(g) - "person" includes a group or body of persons, an association, or a religious or charitable institution or endowment, whether incorporated or not;
Sec.4. Prohibition of land grabbing-
(1) ...
(2) Any person who, or on after the commencement of this Act, continues to be in occupation, otherwise than as a lawful tenant, of a grabbed land belonging to the Government, local authority, religious or charitable institution or endowment 11 including a wakf, or other private person, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
......
Sec.8 - Procedure and powers of the Special Courts-
(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu, or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing, or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;
Sec.10 - Burden of proof - Where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the Special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person.
24. Rules 3 & 6 of the Rules provides for the procedure for making application and verification of such application filed, and it reads as under:
"Rule 3 - Procedure for making application.
1. ....
2. ....
3. ....
4. Every such applicant shall contain a statement in a concise form of the material facts of the claim made therein and shall be accompanied by true copies of all the documents duly attested on which the applicant proposes or is likely to rely. The Petitioner shall file copies in the Court to be verified by the Mandal Revenue Officer or by the Officer authorised by the Court in this behalf and as many copies as are required for service on all the respondents.
Rule 6 - Verification of Application.12
(1) Every application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or every case taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court or an application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act, before the Special Tribunal, may be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the area or by any other Officer of the Government authorised by the Court in this behalf.
(2) The Mandal Revenue Officer or the other Officer to whom the application has been referred under sub-rule (1) shall make or cause to be made an inspection or verification or both, as soon as may be practicable and shall submit a full and complete report within two weeks from the date of receipt of order with reference to Revenue Records and facts on ground as to the following,-
(i) the correctness of the statements made in the application [x x x] [The expression 'with regard to columns 1 to 15 and 19 in Form-I' omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 1350, Revenue (A&R) Department, dated 10.11.2010.];
(ii) the facts relating to ownerships, actual possession and use of the land concerned ; and
(iii) such other particulars and information as would be useful to the Court to arrive at a correct decision on the claims made in the application.
[Provided that the said report is not required to be submitted in respect of the application filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer.] [Proviso Added by G.O.Ms. No. 1076, Revenue (A&R), dated. 29.11.1991.]
25. It is also relevant to refer to Form-I, application to be filed as prescribed under the Act:
" [Form I] [substituted by G.O.Ms. No. 1350, Revenue (A&R) Department, dated 10.11.2010.][See Rule 3] Application under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A and under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982ToThe Special Tribunal (District Judge/Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 13 Hyderabad)The ChairmanSpecial Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.
1. Between And : Applicants : Respondents
2. Description of the Applicant:
3. Description of the Respondents:
4. Concise Statement/brief facts of the case:
5. Cause of Action:
6. Jurisdiction:
7. Value of the Land:
Whether there are any Houses or structures on the land, to whom they belong, how they were acquired; Market value of the Land.
8. A Co-relation statement between the Survey and Sub-
Division of the last Re-survey done and the previous survey:
9. Court Fee:
10. Prayer:
Counsel for the Applicant Applicant Verification I, the above named applicant do hereby declare that the contents of the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Hence verified on this the_____________day of month____________20___.
Applicant of Property
1. Name of the Village/Municipality/Corporation:
2. Name of the Mandal:
3. Name of the District:
4. Classification of the Land:
5. Survey Number and Sub-division:
6. Extent:
7. Boundaries of Survey Number of adjacent lands:
North : East :South : West :List of Documents Sl. No. Date of Document Description Counsel for applicant"
26. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act along with the rules framed there under as extracted above, in particular considering that the initial burden is on the person alleging land 14 grabbing to prove the land is owned by Government or private person as the case may be, it would be clear that it is only an aggrieved party, which can file an application invoking the provisions of the Act, against the person(s) named therein having resorted to an act of land grabbing and consequently, to declare him/them as 'land grabber' under the Act, be it Government in respect of a government land or a private person in respect of his land or of local body and not a inter vivos.
27. Thus, if a government land is grabbed, it is only the government, which can initiate action. Similarly, if land of a charitable institution or a waqf is grabbed, it is the concerned religious or charitable institution or waqf, which is required to initiate action by filing necessary application.
28. The above position would be further clear, if one looks at Rule 3(4) of the Rules, and the application that is required to be submitted in Form-I requiring to disclose the cause of action. As per the aforesaid Rule, the person filing application has to enclose the relevant documents, and only upon the person making an application in Form-I enclosing relevant documents to establish his interest in respect of the subject to property being claimed as grabbed by the person named in the 15 application as respondent, the same can be taken on record, and may be referred for legal inspection or verification by the revenue officials.
29. Thus, a third party to the land merely by alleging that the subject land is grabbed, cannot file or maintain an application under the provisions of the Act claiming that the subject land belongs to, be it government, private party, local body, religious or charitable institution, including waqf, without the concerned party, to whom the subject land belongs, having themselves not initiating any action.
30. In the facts of the present case, though it is the case of the petitioners that the subject land is a government land and the unofficial respondents having encroached the same, as the unofficial respondents having filed a suit against the Government to declare themselves as absolute owners of subject land and the Government on contest having lost the case, the petitioners cannot persist with the said claim of the subject land being a government land. It is not shown to this Court that the government being aggrieved by the said decision having taken further action by preferring an appeal.16
31. When the government, which had initially laid claim to the land as belonging to them and having lost the case, it is not open to a third party, like the petitioners, to plead the case of the government.
32. Thus, the reading of the term 'any person' as used under Section 8(1) of the Act, in the manner as sought to be read by the petitioners, would result in a distorted meaning being given to the said term out of context and beyond the framework of the Act, which cannot be permitted.
33. Though on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that part of the subject land, alleged to be grabbed by the unofficial respondents, having been regularized in their favour by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.166, inasmuch as the said GO has been suspended by this Court, the petitioners cannot continue to claim the subject land as government land.
34. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners to be in possession of the part of the subject land alleged grabbed by the unofficial respondents is concerned, unless and until the petitioners admit to the fact of being in possession of the subject land in violation of the interim injunction, dt.17.12.2019 in OS.No.2105 17 of 2009, their claim of the unofficial respondents disturbing their possession cannot be accepted.
35. Though the petitioners have contended that the land being claimed by the unofficial respondents is under a decree, there is no schedule of the property with boundaries being claimed by the unofficial respondents, and the same is identified by door number, it is not for the petitioners to claim that unofficial respondents on the basis of the sale deed is squatting on the land of the government, while the property under registered sale deed is located elsewhere.
36. The Special Court while rejecting the underlying LGC application filed by the petitioners herein has rightly noted that even if the 1st respondent-State had filed the LGC against the unofficial respondents seeking declaration that it is government land, it would not have been maintainable, in view of the judgment and decree granted in OS.No.249 of 1994, which had attained finality, and since the 1st respondent, who could not maintain the LGC having suffered a decree, cannot indirectly claim the same said land through third parties, like the application filed by the petitioners herein. 18
37. Further, the reliance placed by the petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in R.S.Nayak's case (1 supra), as regards the ambit of the term 'any person' is out of context and would not advance the case of the petitioners.
38. In view of the analysis of the provisions relating to the Act and Rules in relation to the scheme of the Act, this Court is of the view that the application filed by the petitioners before the Special Court is clearly without any sanction under the Act.
39. Thus, the order of the Special Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners by not recognizing the petitioners as 'any person' entitled to maintain the underlying application, in the considered view of this Court, is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the Special Court has rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to initiate action under the Act by filing the underlying application.
40. Thus, this Court sees no merit in the present writ petition and the same is devoid of merit.
41. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.19
42. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J _________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J 28th May, 2025.
gra 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUISTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8304 of 2015 28th February, 2025 gra