REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL No. 1849   OF 2002      

V.LAXMINARASAMMA ...   Appellant(s)                         Versus    A.YADAIAH (DEAD) AND ORS. ...  Respondent(s)

WITH Crl. A. No. 1850/2002  

J U D G M E N T

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

During the hearing of these appeals it was noticed that two decisions of  

this Court rendered by two learned Single Judges expressed contrary views and the  

matter was referred to a larger Bench.  The dispute relates to the Andhra Pradesh  

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ( in short 'Act').  The two decisions which  

were referred to by the Bench while making reference to a larger Bench were Konda  

Lakshmana Bapuji   Vs.  Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  (2002) 3SCC 258  

and N.Srinivasa Rao  Vs. Special Court under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition)  

Act & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 214. The three Judge Bench by judgment dated 3.3.2009  

held that Kunda Lakshmana Bapuji case (supra) lays down  the correct  law  and N.  

Srinivasa Rao  does not.  The

-2-

reference was accordingly answered.  The three Judge Bench was of the view that  

the tribunal/Special Court constituted under the Act has requisite jurisdiction to go  

into the question of adverse possession. The three Judge Bench also noticed that it is  

one thing to say that a summary proceeding cannot be resorted to when a noticee  

resists bonefide dispute involving complicated questions of title and his right remain  

in possession of  the land.   But,  it  is  another thing to say that although both the  

Special Court and/or Tribunal which has all the powers of a civil court would not be  

entitled  to  enter  into  such  a  contention.   After  the  reference  was  answered  this  

matter is placed before us.  

So  far  as  the  appellant  is  concerned  the  following  finding  have  been  

recorded by the Special Court:-

“25.In view of the fact that no document of the so-called gift  

of  the  temples  and  the  lands  having  been  made  in  favour  of  the  

ancestors of respondent 41, have been filed in the court and also in  

view of the statement of respondent 41 that she has been appointed as  

a “Poojari” for a monthly remuneration of Rs. 17.22 by the Revenue  

Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West and the remarks contained in the  

pahanics as well as in the Endowment register of 50 Years old showing  

the land as inam land of Dhaibagh temple, we are convicted that the  

petition-schedule land belongs to the applicant-temple.

-3-

27.xxxxxSince  the  respondent  41  and  her  ancestors  have  

been Poojaris of the temples, there shall be no order of eviction against  

her.   We feel  that in all  fairness,  some time should be given to the  

respondents  for  demolishing  the  houses  and  for  taking  away  the  

structures on the petition-schedule lands.”

In  view  of  the  judgment  of  the  three  Judges-Bench  the  conclusion  of

Special Court are to be operative.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Crl. A. No. 1850/2002:

De-linked.

              ...................J.                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

             ....................J.                          ((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 29, 2009.