REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3413  of 2010 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24345 of 2007]

State of A.P.   …....……Appellant

Versus

Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd & Anr.     ….……...Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Deepak Verma, J

1. Leave  granted.  Arguments  heard.  Record  

perused.

2. On account of illegal and unauthorized grabbing of  

Urban  and  Urbanized  land  in  various  metropolitan  cities,  

State of Andhra Pradesh in its wisdom thought it fit and  

appropriate to bring an Act to curb this menace. The Act is  

known as Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982  

[hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘Act’].

3. Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons  discloses  

that it had come to the notice of Government that there are  

organised attempts on the part of certain lawless persons  

operating individually and in groups to grab either by force,  

or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the Government,  

a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or  

endowment, including wakf or any other private person. The  

Government was further of the view that such land grabbers  

are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting  

up fictitious claims and are indulging in large scale and  

unprecedented  and  fraudulent  sales  of  land  through  

unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of

- 2 -

certain  section  of  people,  resulting  in  large  scale  

accumulation of unaccounted wealth. It was felt that public  

order  is  likely  to  be  adversely  affected.  Such  unlawful  

activities of land grabbers had to be arrested and curbed by  

enacting a special law in that regard.

4. Keeping  the  aforesaid  objects  and  reasons,  

initially,  Andhra  Pradesh  Land  Grabbing  (Prohibition)  

Ordinance, 1982, was promulgated by the Governor on 29.6.1982  

as at that time State Legislature was not in session. But  

subsequently, the aforesaid Act came to be passed by the  

State Legislature.   

5. Section 8 of the said Act deals with procedure and  

powers of the Special Courts which are to be constituted as  

required  under  Section  7  of  the  Act.  A  Special  Court  

generally consists of a Chairman and four other members to be  

appointed by the Government.

6. Section  10  of  the  Act  which  deals  with  burden  of  

proof,  which is required to be considered primarily by us in  

this appeal, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“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”.

7. Plain  and  simple  reading  of  the  aforesaid  

provision would make it abundantly clear that an aggrieved  

person as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act is prima  

facie required to prove before the Special Court that the  

land is owned by such person and presumption that such person  

had grabbed the land would be against him and burden of

- 3 -

proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on  

such person. In the light of aforesaid provisions existing in  

the  Act,  we  are  called  upon  to  examine  the  correctness,  

legality and propriety of the judgment and order passed by  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature,  Andhra  

Pradesh  at  Hyderabad  passed  in  W.P.  No.  4432  of  2005  on  

11.10.2007,  titled  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh Vs.  Hyderabad  

Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and Another.  

Factual matrix of the case lies as under:-

8. State of A.P had filed an application under  

Section 8(1) of the Act before the Special Court, against the  

Respondents seeking a declaration that they be declared land  

grabbers in respect of schedule property and consequently to  

evict them and deliver vacant possession and to further award  

compensation  to  the  State.  The  property  in  question  is  

admeasuring  17,786.56  square  meters  of  land  in  T.S.  4/2,  

Block-B, Ward No. 66 of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal,  

Hyderabad District, now said to be in the heart of the city.  

The case of the Appellant before the Special Court was that  

in  the  town  survey  conducted  in  respect  of  Bakaram  and  

Gaganmahal  villages  in  the  years  1355  and  1357  faslis  

equivalent to 1945-1947 respectively and further in the year  

1965  and  1971  and  on  verification  of  the  maps  of  both  

villages, it was found that certain extent of area existing  

between these two villages was left un-surveyed and was not  

accounted for. Consequently, it remained as a gap area. Gap  

area  means  un-surveyed  land  and  would  be  deemed  to  be  

Government land.

− 4 -

9. According  to  Appellant,  town  survey  was  

conducted by following due procedure as contemplated under  

A.P.  Survey  and  Boundaries  Act,  1923;  accordingly  a  

notification  was  published  for  fixing  up  the  boundaries.  

Thereafter,  the  schedule  property  admeasuring  19214  sq.  

meters of land was recorded as Government land in Column No.  

20 of the Town Survey Land Register (for short ‘T.S.L.R.’).  

Later on, a gazette notification dated 17.07.1976 was issued  

in this regard which remained unchallenged by anyone by way  

of proceedings under Section 14 of A.P. Survey & Boundaries  

Act, 1923. Thus, the said survey having attained finality and  

the lands having been found in possession of the Respondents,  

they would be deemed to be land grabbers.  

10. Appellant further contended that sometime in  

the month of December 1998, Respondents without having any  

right, title or interest on the said land, yet illegally  

grabbed the schedule property to the extent mentioned above  

and started construction of multi-storeyed complexes thereon.  

It  was  further  submitted  that  by  creating  fictitious  and  

fabricated  documents  and  obtaining  permission  from  the  

Municipality,  which  was  earlier  rejected  but  having  

challenged the same by the Respondents in the High Court by  

filing Writ Petition No. 25727 of 2000, the same was granted.  

The  Appellant-State,  therefore,  contended  that  Respondents  

are the land grabbers; they should be directed to deliver  

possession to the Appellant and pay compensation accordingly.

11. On notices being issued to the Respondents on  

the application filed by the Appellant, they filed counter  

affidavits denying each and every allegation levelled against  

them. They contended that first Respondent is a Company duly  

registered under the Companies Act as on 27.04.1946 and later  

on, the nomenclature was changed to that of Hyderabad

- 5 -

Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Initially, Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao and M.K.  

Mudaliar had purchased an extent of Acs. 4-32 guntas of land  

in Survey Nos. 118 to 133 of Nampally Village by registered  

deed  of  sale  executed  in  their  favour  on  09.04.1944  by  

previous original owner and pattedar Shri Haji Mohd Abdul  

Azeez. Later on, the said two purchasers sold the said land  

in favour of Respondent No. 1, Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd.  

by registered deed of sale executed on 31.03.1946 showing  

clear identity of land with boundaries.

12. Out  of  the  said  property  purchased,  certain  

portions were acquired by erstwhile Hyderabad Government in  

two spells for the purpose of construction of houses known as  

“Labour Quarters”. In the land acquisition proceedings, the  

award was passed determining the amount of compensation which  

was  carried  to  civil  court  for  proper  determination  and  

further appeals to the High Court but the property purchased  

by Respondent No. 1 Company was not acquired. Thereafter,  

Municipality  assigned  house  numbers  for  the  factory  and  

adjoining premises as 1-1-365 and 1-1-365/A. Later on, the  

said property was converted for industrial use as per the  

orders of the Government. On coming into force of A.P. Urban  

Land  Ceiling  Act,  1976,  Respondent  No.  1  had  filed  a  

declaration. After due enquiry, an area admeasuring 1427.44  

sq. meters of the said land of Respondent No. 1 was declared  

as surplus land, which was handed over to Government and  

possession  thereof,  was  also  taken  by  it.  Later,  under  

Section 20(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, the State  

Government  on  the  application  of  the  Respondents,  granted  

exemption  on  11.06.1980.  However,  since  the  land  was  not  

being used for purposes for which exemption was sought and  

granted,  the  Government  in  its  wisdom  withdrew  the  said  

exemption.

- 6 -

13. Out of the said extent of land, Respondents  

have constructed a multi-storeyed complex on a part thereof,  

after obtaining prior approval and sanction from Municipal  

Corporation  Hyderabad  and  third  party  rights  have  been  

created in favour of people, who are occupying the flats,  

plots and living with their families. The Municipality had  

also assessed the constructions for the purpose of tax, which  

is being paid regularly apart from payment of electricity and  

other charges etc.  

14. For purposes of construction of another multi-

storeyed complex, they applied for permission on payment of  

Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees fifty lakhs) towards permission fee  

and  other  charges.  The  said  permission  was  refused  on  

26.08.2000  stating  therein  that  the  land  is  a  Government  

land. Respondents were, therefore, constrained to challenge  

the same by filing W.P. No. 25727 of 2000 in the High Court  

of Andhra Pradesh, which came to be allowed on 25.04.2001  

directing  the  Municipality  to  grant  permission  for  

construction of such multi-storeyed complex. In the light of  

the aforesaid factual scenario, Respondents contended that  

the  stand  of  the  Appellant-State  is  unsustainable  and  

Respondents are in possession of the said land for more than  

60 years, in their own rights as owners thereof, thus, they  

cannot be declared land grabbers at all.

15. On the strength of the pleadings of parties,  

Special Court was pleased to frame issues, which have been  

reproduced in the impugned order.  

16. Here, it is pertinent to point out that Section  

9 of the Act, gives powers of the Civil Court and Court of  

Sessions to Special Courts constituted under the Act, in so  

far as, the same may not be inconsistent with the provisions  

of this Act. This Section further shows that the Special  

Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all  

the powers of a Civil Court.

- 7 -

17. The  parties  then  went  to  trial  and  led  

evidence. Appellant examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 on its  

behalf and proved documents A.1 to A.41. Respondents examined  

R.W.1 on their behalf and proved documents B.1 to B.33.

18. On consideration of the entire evidence and the  

material on record produced by both sides, the Special Court  

by majority view dismissed the application filed by the  

Appellant-State whereas one of its revenue members gave a  

differing judgment upholding the claim of the Appellant only  

on the basis of entries available in T.S.L.R. Due to majority  

opinion, the suit filed by Appellant came to be dismissed.  

Appellant-State was thus, constrained to file the aforesaid  

writ petition being W.P. No.4432 of 2005, under Article 226  

of the Constitution of India in the High Court. The Division  

Bench considered the matter from all angles and came to the  

conclusion that Appellant had miserably failed to prove that  

Respondents  are  land  grabbers  as  contemplated  under  the  

provisions of the Act and, therefore, it put its seal of  

approval  on  the  majority  view  of  the  Special  Court  and  

dismissed the Appellant's writ petition.  

19. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, this appeal  

is preferred before us. We have accordingly heard Shri I.  

Venkatnarayana, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and  

Shri V.A. Bobde with Shri V. Sekhar, learned Senior Counsel  

for Respondents, at length and perused the record.

20. The sole basis of the Appellant to claim the  

land was on the strength of entries made in survey records  

showing that the schedule property was surveyed as T.S. No. 4  

/2, Ward No. 66 of Bakaram village having an area of 19214  

sq. meters showing it as a gap area i.e. un-surveyed area as  

per the old survey records and as such it could only be  

declared to be Government land as has been recorded in Column  

No. 20 of the T.S.L.R. Apart from the said revenue record and  

issuance of gazette notification as mentioned hereinabove, no

- 8 -

other material document was filed by the Appellant to show  

that the said land belonged only to Government. It is trite  

that entry in the revenue record alone may not be sufficient  

as conclusive proof of title nor can be relied on for proof  

of establishing the title as such.

21. Special Court had considered the admission  

of P.W.1, one of the witnesses of the Appellant-State, who  

admitted that the schedule land was given Municipal No. 1-1-

365 and NALA tax was being collected from Respondent No. 1  

and pleaded total ignorance of the various sale deeds filed  

by Respondents. This witness also admitted with regard to  

acquisition of lands for construction of labour colonies and  

passing of the awards.

22. Considering  the  evidence  of  other  two  

witnesses;  P.W.2  and  P.W.3,  Special  Court  recorded  a  

categorical finding that they had admitted that at the time  

of conducting the survey in the year 1965-1971 and making of  

entries  in  T.S.L.R.,  no  notice  was  ever  served  on  the  

Respondents and further admitted that it appears that all  

through the possession of the land continued with Respondents  

only. P.W.2 also admitted about grant of municipal number to  

its owner i.e. Respondent No. 1.

23. In the light of the same, the majority  

members of the Special Court came to the conclusion that  

certain entries in the T.S.L.R. may not be sufficient proof  

of possession of the Appellant-State as owner thereof. Copy  

of the T.S.L.R. has been filed showing the details thereof.  

In Column No. 20 “G” is mentioned meaning thereby Government,  

but in Column No. 23 which is Remarks Column, the possession  

of Respondent No. 1, Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. is clearly  

shown which is in consonance with the stand taken by the  

Respondents. It is also pertinent to mention here that ‘G’  

was encircled raising doubts about it and then in Column No.  

23 name of Respondent no.1 is clearly stated.

- 9 -

24. Looking to the matter in totality and from all  

angles it can safely be construed that prima facie Appellant-

State failed to establish that Respondents are land grabbers  

of its land or the title of the land vested with the State.  

Thus,  the  Special  Court  committed  no  error  in   drawing  

presumption in favour of the Respondents that they cannot be  

declared as land grabbers as contemplated under Section 10 of  

the Act and the prima facie burden which lay on the Appellant  

that its land has been grabbed by them has not at all been  

discharged. On the other hand, on account of various sale  

deeds, mutation of their names in the T.S.L.R., Payment of  

Taxes  and  other  documents,  it  was  fully  established  that  

Respondents are the exclusive owner therof. Thus, the burden  

which lay on the Respondents as contemplated under Section 10  

of the Act has fully been discharged.  

25. The narration of the aforesaid facts would  

clearly establish that Respondent No.1 had purchased the said  

land  from  its  previous  owners  whose  names  were  already  

mutated in the land records and after purchase, Respondent  

No.1’s name came to be mutated in the records.  Corporation  

number was allotted to it.  It had started paying Corporation  

Taxes  as  well  as  NALA  Tax  and  electricity  dues.  Its  

possession  for  last  more  than  60  years  had  never  been  

disturbed. It had constructed multi-storeyed building only  

after  obtaining  sanction  and  permission  from  Municipal  

Corporation. In the earlier Writ Petition filed by them in  

the  High  Court,  Municipal  Corporation  and  Appellant-State  

both were parties, which ultimately resulted in favour of the  

Respondents, no such ground was raised. Thus, it could not be  

established even in earlier litigation that the land belonged  

to the State.

- 10 -

26. In fact, second proceedings initiated by  

the Appellant under Section 8 of the Act, would be barred by  

constructive  res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of  

the Code of Civil Procedure, even though such a ground was  

neither taken nor raised before us by the Respondents. Thus,  

it is no more necessary to further deal with this issue.

27. Thus, in our considered opinion, no fault  

can be found either in the judgment and decree of the Special  

Court or in the judgment and order passed by Division Bench  

of the High Court, in Appellant's writ petition.  

28. Keeping the aforesaid facts in mind, we are of  

the  opinion  that  there  is  no  merit  or  substance  in  this  

appeal. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

........................J.                      [P.SATHASIVAM]

.......................J.                [DEEPAK VERMA]

New Delhi. April 19, 2010