Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court 2006 (4) SCC 214 is also a judgment rendered by a two-Judge Bench on the scope of the Special Court's jurisdiction to decide the question whether the alleged land grabber has acquired title by adverse possession. Without noticing the earlier judgment of the coordinate Bench in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (supra), the two-Judge Bench held that the Special Court constituted under Section 7 of the Land Grabbing Act does not have the jurisdiction to decide questions relating to acquisition of title by adverse possession in a proceeding under the Act and the same would fall within the domain of the civil courts. The Bench further held that the learned Special Judge travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested on him under the 1982 Act in deciding that even if the provisions of Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were a bar to the transfer of land without the sanction of Tehsildar, the occupants of land had perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

"Even otherwise on the evidence on record we are not satisfied that the respondents establishment title by adverse possession. The documents filed in support of their plea of adverse possession are xerox copies of the notices said to have been issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act. Ex.B.3 is one such notice dated 8.8.1962. Ex.B.3 is a Xerox copy of the notice. Ex.B.3 does not inspire any confidence as a true one. There is no signature above the word `Tahasildar'. The Sy. No. is stated to be 42 but is not clear. The extent is said to the Ac.1-07 gts. Even we come to Ex.B4 which is said to be a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, we find Sy. No.64 and the extent is 20 guntas only. This is also a Xerox copy. When we come to the next notice which is Ex.B-5 dated 21.2.1969 purported to have been issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, we find Sy. No.42, but the extent is mentioned as Ac.2.00. We do not find any details clearly in the notice. The xerox copies are not all legible. One important fact which has to be looked into is that some signature and the date 21.2.1969 are very clear when the other recitals are not at all legible. The total extent of the Sy. No. is not mentioned in the relevant column. The person who signed the notice or other details are sadly lacking. The next notice is Ex.B-6 dated 22.6.1985. This is also a xerox copy. To whom the notice is issued is not clearly legible. But above the word "R/o name of Mallaiah appears" but the surname is totally different. It is not Gundla Mallaih, but it is totally different. Here in this xerox copy the total extent of the Sy. No. is shown as Ac 18-18 gts, but the figures are tampers with and that is clear even to a naked eye. The land in the occupation of the person is mentioned in the relevant column as Ac.7-12 gts. Ex.B-7 is the reply to Ex.B-6 notice. The reply is submitted by Rakathapu Mallaiah, son of Venkaiah, not by the father of the respondents Goundla Mallaiah. Therefore, it is not clear whether the notice Ex.B-7 was issued to the father of the respondents or not. It is true that the matter relates to the petition schedule property. It is interesting to see in the reply Ex.B-7 that the respondents stated that they have perfected title by adverse possession and that the provisions of Land Encroachment Act are inapplicable. The first respondent as R.W.1 stated in his evidence that his father submitted all the original records along with his explanation dated 4.4.1986, that is, Ex.B-1, and therefore the originals are not forthcoming. We are not satisfied with the ipse-dixit of the witness. The xerox copies do not inspire any confidence in us as being true copies of the originals. It is true that when we come to Ex.B-1 notice issued in the month of March, 1986 a reply was given by the respondents' father/G. Mallaiah. We have referred to the statement contained therein in the fore-going paragraphs wherein he requested that the necessary recommendations may be made to the competent officer to grant patta to the petition schedule property. Therefore, we are not included, for the reasons mentioned above, that the earlier documents Exc. B-3 to 5 are genuine. If we eschew Exs.B-3 to B-5 there is absolutely no evidence to show that Sri. G. Mallaiah, the father of the respondents and the respondents have been in possession of the petition schedule property prior to 1970. The documents filed in support of their plea of adverse possession viz., Exs.B-8 to B-80 relate to a period from 15.12.1977 to the date of the filing of the petition or even thereafter. The documents do not clearly relate to the petition schedule property and they are all xerox copies only. Originals have not been produced before the Court. Even if there documents Exs. B-19 to 25 are taken into consideration, they do not establish the possession of the respondents or their predecessors in title prior to 1977. The said period will not satisfy the required period prescribed for acquiring title by adverse possession. Therefore, we are not inclined in accordance with law invoking the provisions of Act XII/1982, it cannot be said that its action is either arbitrary or capricious."

29. In our view, even though by making reference to the judgment of this Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others (supra), the High Court has given an impression that it was aware of the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a critical analysis of the impugned order makes it clear that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and committed serious error by interfering with the well articulated and well reasoned concurrent findings recorded by the Special Tribunal and the Special Court that Gonda Mallaiah had illegally occupied the Government land and after his death, the respondents continued with the illegal possession and as such they were liable to be treated as land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Land Grabbing Act and that they have failed to prove that their possession was open and hostile to the Government so as to entitle them to claim title over the schedule land by adverse possession. The respondents did not produce any affirmative evidence before the Special Tribunal regarding the point of time when Gonda Mallaiah occupied the land and started cultivation. Instead, they relied upon the notices issued under Section 7 of the Encroachment Act and pleaded that the proceedings initiated under that Act will be deemed to have been dropped because no order was passed for eviction of their father by treating him an encroacher of the Government land. The Special Court has considered this issue in detail and assigned cogent reasons for doubting the authenticity of the documents produced by the respondents in support of their plea. The High Court completely overlooked the observations made by the Special Court on this issue and decided the case by presuming that the competent authority had taken a conscious decision to allow Gonda Mallaiah to continue his occupation of the Government land. In our considered view, the approach adopted by the High Court was ex-facie erroneous because absence of final order in the proceedings initiated under the Encroachment Act cannot lead to an inference that the concerned authority had recognized the possession of Gonda Mallaiah over the schedule land. That apart, even if this Court was to presume that the proceedings initiated against Gonda Mallaiah under the Encroachment Act had been dropped, the said presumption cannot be over stretched for entertaining the respondents' claim that their possession was open and hostile qua the true owner i.e. the Government. The payment of land revenue by Gonda Mallaiah and/or the respondents and making of applications by them to the Government for assignment of the schedule land or regularisation of their possession, completely demolish their case that their possession was open and hostile and they have acquired title by adverse possession. In this context, it is necessary to remember that it is well neigh impossible for the State and its instrumentalities including the local authorities to keep every day 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 regularized. 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 upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers.

30. In State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through Lrs. 2000 (5) SCC 652, this Court considered the question whether the respondents had acquired title by adverse possession over the suit land situated at Nohar-Bhadra Road at Nohar within the State of Rajasthan. The suit filed by the respondent against his threatened dispossession was decreed by the trial Court with the finding that he had acquired title by adverse possession. The first and second appeals preferred by the State Government were dismissed by the lower appellate Court and the High Court respectively. This Court reversed the judgments and decrees of the courts below as also of the High Court and held that the plaintiff-respondent could not substantiate his claim of perfection of title by adverse possession. Some of the observations made on the issue of acquisition of title by adverse possession which have bearing on this case are extracted below:-