http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1526-1527 of 2005

PETITIONER: K. Sharada Bai & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Shanshunnisa & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)      These appeals are directed against the final judgment  and order dated 25.06.2002 passed by the High Court of  Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition  Nos. 29675 & 29712 of 1997 in and by which the High Court  dismissed these writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. 2)      BRIEF FACTS:    The schedule land forms part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar  Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the  total extent of which is Ac. 3.19 guntas.  Out of the said  extent, one Chakali Ramaiah owned an extent of Ac. 1.29  guntas of land and one Katika Baloji owned an extent of  Ac.1.30 guntas.   Out of total extent of Ac.1.29 guntas,  Chakali Ramaiah sold an extent of Ac.1.00 to Smt.  Shamshunnisa Begum, contesting respondent No.1 herein and  20 guntas to one Jahangir and retained the balance of 9  guntas.  Katika Baloji sold an extent of 30 guntas to Smt. K.  Sharada Bai, appellant No.1 herein and 1 acre to H. Padmini  Bhai, appellant No.2 herein. The contesting respondent filed  O.S. No. 87 of 1988 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West  & South, R.R. Dist. for a perpetual injunction restraining  appellants herein and others acting on their behalf from  interfering with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of her  1 acre land.  By order dated 14.07.1995, the said suit was  transferred to the Special Court constituted under the A.P.  Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to  as \021the Act\022) and numbered as L.G.C. No. 133 of 1995.  On its  transfer, it was tried along with L.G.C. No. 162 of 1994 which  was filed by respondent No.1 herein alleging that the  appellants grabbed 12.5 guntas of land out of her 1 acre land.    During the pendency of the application, the Special Court  appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect and measure  the disputed land and the Commissioner filed a report before  the Court which is filed as Annexure P-1 along with the S.L.P.   On 15.10.1997, the Special Court by a common judgment  allowed both the L.G.Cs holding the appellants herein as land  grabbers and directed to deliver the vacant possession of 12.5  guntas of land to the 1st respondent.  Aggrieved by the said  order, the appellants filed Writ Petition Nos. 29675 and 29712  of 1997 before the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the  writ petitions holding that the Special Court has not  committed any error in allowing the L.G.Cs.  Questioning the  same, the appellants filed the above appeals by way of special  leave.  3)      We heard Mr. Roy Abraham, learned counsel appearing  for the appellants and Mrs. K. Amareswari, learned senior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

counsel appearing for respondent No.1.    4)      The only question to be considered in these appeals is  whether the order passed by the Special Court and the  impugned order of the High Court upholding the decision of  the Special Court is sustainable or not? 5)      Though in the grounds of appeal an objection was raised  about the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under  the Act, no argument was advanced with regard to the same.   On the other hand, the appellants challenged the merits of the  impugned orders and the ultimate conclusion arrived.  The  contesting respondent filed an application under Section 8(1)  of the Act to declare the appellants herein as land grabbers  and evict them from an extent of 15 guntas of land forming  part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar Village.  She filed counter  contending that she is bona fide purchaser and she is in  possession and enjoyment of her property since the date of  purchase and perfected title to the schedule property by  adverse possession.  Before the Special Court, common  evidence was recorded.  On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 &  2 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-21 were marked.  On behalf  of the respondents, RW 1 was examined and EX. B1 to B-14  were marked.   The Special Court examined CW-1 and Ex. C1  to C-8 were marked.  The Special Court, on appreciation of  oral and documentary evidence, found that the applicant  before it is the owner of 12= guntas of land forming part of Sy.  No. 30 as specifically shown in the sketch of the  Commissioner and declared the respondents as land grabbers  and directed to deliver possession as far as L.G.C. No. 162 of  1994 is concerned and granted permanent injunction to an  extent of 27= guntas of land in S.No. 30 against the  respondents in L.G.C. No. 133 of 1995.  The said order was  confirmed by the High Court. 6)      It is useful to refer the definition of \023Land Grabbing\024 and  \023Land Grabbers\024 as defined in Section 2(e) and Section 2(d) of  the Act respectively: \023Section 2(e) \026 \023land grabbing\024 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 unauthorized  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 unauthorized structures; and the  term \023to grab land\024 shall be construed accordingly.\024

\023Section 2(d) \026 \023land grabber\024 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 unauthorized  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.\024

In view of the above statutory provisions and of the claim of  the applicant that she is the original owner of the schedule  property and her land was grabbed by the respondents, the  initial burden is on her to prove her right and title to the  property and if the same is discharged, the burden shifts on  the respondents.  It is not in dispute that the land was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

purchased by the applicant and respondent Nos. 1 & 2  forming part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar Village.  It is also not  disputed that Sy. No. 30 was not sub-divided.  It is the claim  of the applicant that she purchased the property from  Ramaiah and S. Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed  dated 15.02.1979 which is marked as Ex. A-1 which is part of  Sy. No.30.   Before the Special Court, the applicant very much  relied on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer.  On the  direction of the Court, a Commissioner was appointed, who  after inspection submitted a report.  Based on the oral and  documentary evidence coupled with the report of the Mandal  Revenue Officer as well as the Commissioner, the Special  Court found that the applicant is in possession of 27 = guntas  of land and the adjoining 12 = guntas of land forming part of  Sy. No. 30 which is claimed by the applicant is adjoining to  the said land.  The Special Court disbelieved the claim of the  respondents that there is a boundary wall in between those  lands i.e., 27 = guntas of land and 12 = guntas of land and  rightly rejected their stand.   7)      Mrs. K. Amareshwari, learned senior counsel appearing  for the contesting respondent before us by taking us through  the relevant portion of the order of the Special Court  submitted that the applicant has duly established her case by  placing oral and documentary evidence and the Special Court  after accepting the same and basing reliance on the records as  well as the report of the Commissioner rightly passed an order  which was confirmed by the High Court.  In the light of the  submission, we verified the order of the Special Court and the  materials placed before it.  It shows that after tabulating all  the details furnished by the applicant and the respondents, it  concluded as follows: \0238-x  \005\005\005\005\005Thus the respondents 1 & 2 or their  successors-in-interest are in occupation of land which does  not belong to them.  The report of the Commissioner shows  that about 12 = guntas as shown in the sketch appended to  the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is in the  occupation of  R1 and R2 or their vendees.  In the absence of  any evidence to show that 12 = guntas of land belongs to R1  & R2 and that it lies in Survey Number 30 A, it shall be  presumed that the said land which is in SY. No.30 and  which abuts the extent of 27 = guntas of land of the  applicant, belongs to the applicant, particularly when it is  shown in Ex. B6 to Ex. B13 that one of the survey numbers  in which plots 50 to 55 lie, is 30 AA.  In fact the area covered  by plots 49 to 55 is the disputed land.\024

\023For the foregoing discussion, we hold that the appellant is  the owner of 12 = guntas of land forming part of the land in  Sy. No. 30 as shown in the sketch appended to the report of  the Commissioner and that the rival title set up by R1 & R2  over the said land is not true and valid.\024

Inasmuch as the above conclusion is based on the  appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the  applicant and the respondents as well revenue records and the  report of the Commissioner, the said conclusion cannot be  faulted with.  The High Court, after analyzing all the materials  and finding that the petitioners before them who are  appellants before us are land grabbers and grabbed 12 =  guntas of land, concurred with the decision arrived at by the  Special Court  and dismissed their writ petitions.

8)      In the light of the abundant acceptable materials in the  form of oral and documentary evidence coupled with the report  of the Mandal Revenue Officer and of the Commissioner, we

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Special Court and  the High Court and reject the claim of the appellants.   Consequently, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed,  accordingly, we do so.  No costs.