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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7360 of 2000

PETITIONER: State of Andhra Pradesh

RESPONDENT: Abdul Khuddus (Dead) by LRs & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2007

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7360 of 2000

1.      This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order  dated 13th of October, 1998 of the High Court of  Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.  No. 6452 of 1995, whereby the Division Bench of the  High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the  respondents and set aside the order dated 9th of June,  1994 passed by the Special Court under the Andhra  Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at  Hyderabad (for short "the Special Court").   2.      The only question that needs to be decided in this appeal is, "Can the  High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the  Constitution, set aside a finding of fact arrived at by the Special Court,  under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short  "the Act") when such finding of fact of the Special Court was made on  consideration of the evidence on record and could not be said to be  perverse or arbitrary.?"   3.      Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the  appellant, the State of Andhra Pradesh, filed an application under the Act  against the respondents in the Special Court alleging, inter alia, that the 1st  respondent was in occupation of 470 sq. yards of land in Ward No. 5,  Block No. 1, Vijaywada out of which 220 sq. yards situated in N.T.S. No.  26 correlated to old N.T.S. No. 17/1-A/1-A of Vijaywada town (for short the  "Schedule Land") was by way of illegal encroachment.  The appellant  further complained that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, being the heirs and  legal representatives of the original respondent No. 2, were in occupation of  540 sq. yards of land, out of which 190 sq. yards also situated in N.T.S.  No. 26 correlated to old N.T.S. No. 17/1-A/1-A of Vijaywada town (for short  "the schedule land") was by way of illegal encroachment.  Accordingly, the  State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant, had prayed for a declaration that  the respondents were land grabbers within the meaning of the Act and that  the appellant was the owner of the Schedule Land.   4.      The respondents, in their objection, denied that they were land  grabbers in respect of the Schedule Land and pleaded that their  predecessors-in-interest had perfected title of the land by way of  adverse possession and alternatively, according to them, the  Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society and therefore, the  question of grabbing the land of the appellant by the respondents  did not arise at all. Accordingly, they pleaded that the application  under the Act filed by the State of A.P. must be rejected.  5.       The parties went into trial and they were permitted to adduce  evidence in support of their respective cases.  6.      The Special Court before which the application for land grabbing was

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

filed by the appellant, after considering the oral and documentary evidence  on record, held that the respondents were land grabbers within the  meaning of the Act.  The Special Court also held, on consideration of the  materials on record and evidence adduced by the parties, that the  respondents had failed to prove that they had perfected the title in respect  of the Schedule Land by way of adverse possession. It was also held on  consideration of the evidence on record that the respondents had failed to  prove that the Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society. However,  the Special Court, after finding that the respondents had done construction  on the Schedule Land, granted liberty to the respondents to pay the market  value of the Schedule Land grabbed by them so that the title of the same  could be perfected by them.  Accordingly, the Special Court directed the 1st  respondent to pay Rs. 4,40,000/- and the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay  Rs. 3,80,000/- by 12 monthly installments to the appellant.   7.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Special Court, the respondents  filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was  allowed, as noted herein earlier, and the order of the Special Court was set  aside.   8.      For proper disposal of this appeal, therefore, it would be necessary  for us to consider the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court at this  stage. The Special Court had reached the following findings of fact after  analyzing the evidence  - oral and documentary on record: -    (i)     Exhibit A1 was the extract of Town Survey Land Register  in respect of the land in Old T.S. No. 17/1A/1A and its  classification was shown as ’poramboke’.  Exhibit A2  was the extract of the Adangal in respect of the said land  for Faslies of 1399-1400, in which the Schedule Land  was described as ’Konda Poramboke’ in Column No. 6.       (ii)    The name of the 1st Respondent was shown as an  encroacher into an extent of 220 sq. yards in Exhibit A2.   In Exhibit A3, Adangal extract, the name of 2nd  Respondent was shown as an encroacher into an extent  of 190 sq. yards and that Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, who  were the legal representatives of the 2nd Respondent  were continuing in possession of that 190 sq. yards after  the death of Respondent No. 2.   (iii)   Exhibit A4 was the sketch showing the extents  encroached by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.   (iv)    Exhibit A5 was another sketch showing the encroached  extents. (v)     After considering the evidence of PW3, it was found that  Exhibit A13 was a true extract of 1965 survey plan  showing the extents grabbed by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 &  4, which were in N.T.S. No. 26 marked in red colour  belonging to the Government.   (vi)    Relying on the evidence of PW3, it was further found that  the land of Gandhi Hill Society was in N.T.S. No. 52 as  per the 1965 survey, which was correlated to Old N.T.S.  No.15-Al Part.    (vii)   Relying on the cross-examination of PW-3, it was also  held that only an extent of 7 acres and odd in N.T.S. No.  52 belonged to Gandhi Hill Society and the Society had  no title ever in extent of N.T.S. No. 26. (viii)  No documents were filed to prove since how long the  respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 were in possession of the  extents that were shown to have been grabbed by them.   (ix)    Relying on Exhibit A12, it was also held that N.T.S. No.  52 was correlated to Old N.T.S. No. 15-A1 Part of  Vijaywada and N.T.S. No. 26 was correlated to Old  N.T.S. No. 17/1A-Part.  Accordingly, the Special Court  held that the entries in Exhibit A12 would clearly go to  show that Gandhi Hill Society had nothing to do with  N.T.S. No. 26 formed in pursuance of the survey in the  year 1965 and, therefore, it was clearly proved from the  evidence of PW1 & 2 that the Schedule Land, which was

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

an extent of 410 sq. yards lying to the East of the sites  covered by Exhibits A8 and All was in N.T.S. No. 26  belonging to the Government and not in N.T.S. No. 52  belonging to Gandhi Hill Society.   (x)     An adverse inference was drawn against the  respondents for non-production of the title deeds who  had placed reliance only on Exhibit A-8, which was in  favour of Respondent No. 1 and Exhibit A11 which was  in favour of late Respondent No. 2. (xi)    The respondent No. 1 admittedly had purchased only an  extent of 250 sq. yards adjoining East of 220 sq. yards  shown to have been grabbed by him as per Exhibit A4  and it was also admitted by Respondent No. 3 that his  mother Respondent No. 2 had purchased only an extent  of 350 sq. yards under the original of Exhibit A11 and the  site of an extent of 190 sq. yards shown to have been  grabbed by him and Respondent No. 4 was not covered  by that Sale Deed.   (xii)   So far as the case of adverse possession of the  respondents was concerned, it was found that the  respondents had failed to prove that they had acquired  title by adverse possession.   

Accordingly, the Special Court, after considering the findings arrived at by  it allowed the application holding that the land belonged to the State and  directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs. 4,40,000/- and the 2nd and 3rd  respondents to pay Rs. 3,80,000/- by 12 monthly installments to the  appellant.  9. It is this order of the Special Court, which was challenged by the  respondents by way of a Writ Petition.  At this juncture, we may now  consider as to when the High Court could interfere, with a finding of fact  arrived at by the Special Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under  Article 226 of the Constitution.  It is now well settled that the High Court, in  its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, may interfere with  the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court only if the findings are  based on no evidence or based on conjectures or surmises and if no  reasonable man would on given facts and circumstances come to the  conclusion reached by the Special Court. Therefore, it is pellucid that it is  only in these special circumstances that it would be open to the High Court  to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court. In  Konda Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others  2002 (3) SCC 258,  this court while dealing with the provisions of the Act  decided the question as to when could the High Court, in the exercise of its  writ jurisdiction, interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Special  Court and observed in para 49 as under :- "On a careful perusal of the judgment of the Special Court on the  question of title of the first respondent and that of the appellant and his  lessor Inamdar we are satisfied that neither was any relevant material  excluded from consideration nor was any irrelevant material relied upon  by the Special Court in recording its finding.  There was, therefore, no  scope for the High Court to interfere with those findings.  In our view, the  High Court committed no error of law in not interfering with the findings of  the Special Court in regard to the title of the first respondent and absence  of title in the appellant to the land in dispute (see : Omar Salay Mohamed  Sait V. CIT)\005\005\005."

10. We have already discussed the findings of the Special Court and we  find from the same that the findings arrived at by the Special Court cannot,  by any stretch of imagination, be said to be based on no evidence or beset  with surmises or conjectures and that the finding of the Special Court on  the question of title of the respondents by way of adverse possession was  based on consideration of the relevant evidence \026 both oral or  documentary. That apart, we also find from the order of the Special Court  that neither any relevant material was excluded from consideration by it nor  was any irrelevant material relied upon by it in recording its findings.  At the

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

risk of repetition, we may say that the Special Court had gone into the  evidence, considered the evidence adduced by both the parties including  the documentary evidence on record and came to a finding that the  Schedule Land did not belong to Gandhi Hill Society and that the  respondents could not prove that they had perfected title in respect of the  Schedule Land by way of adverse possession.  That apart, we are of the  view that since it has been found on facts that the respondents could  neither prove that they had acquired the title by way of adverse possession  in respect of the Schedule Land nor could it be proved that the Schedule  Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society, it cannot be ruled out that the land  would only belong to the State which was grabbed by the respondents. It  may also be placed on record that the High Court, while reversing the  findings of the Special Court could also not come to a conclusion of fact  that the respondents had perfected their title in respect of the Schedule  Land by adverse possession or that the Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi  Hill Society.  Such being the position, we are unable to sustain the order of  the High Court, which had set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the  Special Court, which, in our view, were arrived at on consideration of the  materials on record and which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be  said to be based on no evidence or surmises or conjectures and therefore,  it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to  set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court which were  based on sound consideration of the materials on record.   11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.   Before parting with this order, we may keep it on record that the Special  Court had taken into consideration the fact that the respondents have  constructed on the Schedule Land and therefore, had directed payment of  compensation so that title of the respondents in respect of the Schedule  Land is perfected.  That being the position, it would be open to the  respondents to pay the amount as directed by the Special Court and in the  event, the said amount as directed by the Special Court is paid within four  months from this date, the application filed by the appellant shall be  disposed of with that direction and in the event, the respondents fail to  deposit the said amount, the application filed by the appellant before the  Special Court shall stand allowed and it would be open to the appellant to  recover the Schedule Land in accordance with law.   12.      For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High  Court is set aside and that of the Special Court is restored. 13.      The Civil Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to  costs.