Tt High Court · 2025

ORDER'.(per Honble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dt.22.10.2008 in L.G.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, at Hyderabad in terms of Sectlon B(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short,'the Act).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record'

3. The petitioners herein are the respondents before the Special Court in an application filed by the l'L respondent herein under the provisions of the Act to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers in terms of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act in respect of land admeasuring 12,100 square yards (Acs.2.20 guntas) situated in I 2 Sy.No.74lE of Serilingampaliy Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

4. The brief Facts of the case are that the 1't respondent herein had filed application under Section B(1) of the Act tc declare him as owner of the application schedule property, namely 12,100 square yards (Acs.2.20 guntas) in Sy.No.74lE of Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers; to evict the petitioners from the application schedule land and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the respondent- applicant; to punish the petitioners - respondents und,lr the provisions of the Act; to award mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per annum from the date of grabbing till the date of delivery of po:,session to the respondent - applicant; and tc award damages of Rs.10,000/- per annum; and to award costs of the application to tl- e respondent - applicant.

5. On the 1't respondent - applicant filing the aforesaid application, the Special Court took cognizance of the same on

03.01.2003, a Gazette Notification dt.27.0t.2003 was published calling for objections from the persons interested in the application schedule r, 3 land. However, no objections have been received. The Special Court had also called for a statutory verification repoft as required under Rule 6(2) of the Rules made under the Act, which was duly submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal.

6. The case of the 1't respondent - applicant before the Special Court is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.74lE situated at Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from the original owners and possessors, viz., M.Venkat Reddy and L.Satyanarayana Reddy and others under registered sale deed dt.04.04.1981; that on the respondent - applicant purchasing the aforesaid extent of land, the revenue authorities have assigned sub- division numbe r as 74lE and mutated the said application schedule land on to his name in the revenue records; that the l't respondent - applicant since the date of purchase is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops; and that prior to the purchase of the application schedule land by the respondent - applicant, his vendors were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same' I I 4

7. The 1't respondent - applicant further pleadec that since, the land in the neighbourhood being developed for resi,lential use, the applicant did not undertake agricultural activities in t te said land for the past 5 to 6 years; though the 1st respondent -. applicant was visiting the applicaticn schedule land occasionally, petitioners _ respondents taking advantage of his absence have gratrbed the lancl to an extent of 7260 square yards (Ac.1.20 guntas) rrut of Acs.2.20 guntas without any manner of right or tiue and ltave erected a temporary shed some time in the month of June, 2( 02 and further unauthorizedly raised crop in the application schedule p.operty. B. The 1't respondent - applicant further contend:d that though his efforts to convince the petitioners - respondents tiat the subject land is belonging to him, and they have no right to enter into the application schedule land or to raise crops therein, th _. same proved futile and on the other hand, the petitioners - respondents in collusion with each other have illegally and forcibly grabbed the :ntire extent oF his land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas.

9. It is the further case of the 1.t responclent - appli,:ant that slnce, the petitioners - respondents gr-abbed his entire land to an extent of 5 Acs.2.20 guntas, he had filed interlocutory application, vide l.A.No.67 of 2004 to amend the application prayer claiming that the petitioners - respondents have grabbed the entire extent of land of Acs'2.20 guntas which was duly allowed by the Special Court.

10. It is further contended that on the Special Court taking cognizance of the application filed by the 1't respondent - applicant, the 1s petitioner - l't respondent filed counter - affidavit denying the averments made in the application and contended that one of the so- called vendors of the applicant, viz., M'Yenkat Reddy was not only the Sarpanch but was also Patwari of the Serilingampally Village and being the Patwari, he manipulated the records and recorded his name in the revenue records in respect of the application schedule land along with others.

11. The 1st petitioner - 1d respondent by his counter contended that he is not only residing in the application schedule property but was also cultivating the said land for the past 40 years and had also claimed of he having raised Guava garden therein to an extent oF Ac.0.15 guntas; and that the age of the trees is more than 12 years I 6 and the entire area is covered by trees, residential h(ruse and cattle shed etc. L2. By the counter-affidavit, the 1st petitioner - 1't respondent further claimed that he is in possession of the land lcr the past 40 years and perfected his title by way of adverse possessi )n; that Venkat Reddy claiming himself as owner of large extent of l.tnds in various survey numbers of Serilingampally Village, sold the lancs including that of the respondent - applicant herein; and that the sale deed executed by M.Venkat Reddy. Sarpanch, in favour of the respon( ent - applicant is without any authority as the same has been done hy manipulating the revenue records.

13. The petitioners - respondents 2 to 5 herein hav,l filed a Memo adopting the counter flled by the lst petitioner - 1't res,pondent before the Special Court. L4. The Special Court by considering the application filed by the l't respondent - applicant and counter filed by the 1st petitioner - l't respondent had framed following issues for trial and determination: "(1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the applici tion schedule property? .-J 7 (2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicant? (3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act xII of 7982? (4) Whether the applicant is entitled for any compensation, profits and damages as prayed for in the application? (5) Whether the respondents perfected their title by adverse possession? (6) To what relieP"

15. To support his case, the 1't respondent - applicant examined PWs.1 to 3, including himself as PW.1, and marked exhibits Exs'4.1 to A23; on behalf of the petitioners-respondents, RWs.l to B were examined and marked Exs.B.1 to 8.6; and since PW.3 is the Mandal Surveyor, the Special Court marked through him exhibits under'C' series, rdeExs.C.l to C.4.

16. The Special Court by considering the evidence that has been let in by the parties, taking note of the fact that the 1't respondent - applicant is claiming title to the subject property under a registered sale deed dt.04.04.1981; that the revenue authorities after conducting enquiry having mutated the subject land in favour of the l't respondent - applicant; that the petitioners - respondents not only claimed the land in Sy.No.74 but also claimed themselves of land in I 8 Sy.Nos.7O, 71, 72 and 73 and also having admitted ir their evidence, that they having not filed any documents to show tha" the land in the said survey numbers belongs to them, had held that the rival title set up by the petitioners - respondents is not true, vaiid ar d binciing.

17. The Special Court insofar as the claim of advers() possession put up by the petitioners - respondents of being in possession and enjoyment of the application schedule land over 40 yetrs on the basis of Exs.B.1 to 8.6 are concerned, by noting that bunch of electricity bills number to 32 marked as Ex.B.1, are for the period frorr February 2000 to 2006 only and as the petitioners - respondents lid not file any electricity bills prior to 2000 for the period commencinl from the date of purchase of the application schedule land by the I'r respondent - applicant to claim that he was never in possession of th-. subject land.

18. Fufther, the Special Court also noted that Ex.B..: marked by the petitioners - respondents shows that the electricity se vice connection is given to. land covered by Sy.No.76 but not in respect of land in Sy.No.74, part of which is mutated in the name of the ,st respondent - applicant by the revenue authorities in the year 1984. 9

19. The Special Court further held that Ex.B.3, i.e. copy of the report / pafticulars of electricity connection of the 1$ petitioner - respondent bearing service No.12003-2412 of APSEB shows the service connection is given to house in Sy.No.76l1 and nbt to any house situated in Sy.No.74.

20. The Special Court fufther noted that Exs.B'4 and 8.5 which are also electricity bills numbering to 38 marked by RW.7 in respect of servlce connection N0.12003 is in respect of house bearing No.2-34 situated in Sy.No.76 and are for the period 04.08'2000 to 20'02.2005 and do not peftain to any earlier period as claimed by the petitioners - respondents.

21. The Special Court further noted that Ex.B'6 being relied upon by the petitioners - respondents to claim to be in possession of the application schedule land for a period of over 40 years is a properlry tax receipt paid in the name of 1st petitioner - l't respondent in respect of house bearing No.2-34 for the years 2003-2006 and as the said house is situated in Sy.No.76, the petitioners - respondents cannot claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the application schedule land in I 10 Sy.No.74lE over the last 40 or 45 years, and all the e>hibits marked by them relate to some other property.

22. The Special Court also noted that the 3d petitioner _ 3'd respondent examined as RU/.7 admilted in his cross- :xamination that Exs.B.4 to 6 have no relevanc/ to the application scherlule land.

23. The Special Court insofar as the claim of |re petitioners - respondents that they having planted various trees and also having developed a guava garden which is 12 years old, ha,l noted that the petitioners - respondents have obtained electricity connection to the Iand in Sy.No.76 only in the year 1999 and without lraving electricity connection, have not shown that as to how they h; ve watered the garden claimed to have been planted by them to clirim for being in possession of the subject land and thus held that whatever crops are claimed to have been raised by the petitioners - r:spondents, the same may have been raised in last 1-2 years, wltile sc,me of the other trees may have existed on their own.

24. The Special Court with regard to the cortention of the petitioners - respondents of being in possession anc cultivating the land foi' long, had noted that the entries in revenu e recotds, viz., 11 pahanies show that the land is noted as 'Padava' meaning 'uncultivated, however in column 13 of the pahanies, it is mentioned as Swantham (own) thereby meaning as belonging to the 1st respondent - applicant.

25. The Special Court further noted that the petitioners - respondents except claiming to be in possession of the land for more than 40-45 years, did not adduce any evidence to establish they having perfected title to the subject land by adverse possession, being in continuance possession of the application schedule propefi for 12 years prior to filing of the application.

26. On the other hand, the Special Court held that the 1s respondent - applicant having established his title to the land under a registered sale deed dt.04.04.1981 and the same being mutated on to his name in the revenue records vide proceedings issued in the year 19Ba by applying the principle of "title follows possession" held that the 1$ respondent - applicant to be the owner of the application schedule property and the claim of the petitioners - respondenls who have set up a rival title is not true, valid and binding. The Special Court having come to the conclusion that the 1$ respondent - applicant to be the 12 owner of the subject land, held that the petitioners - respondents have grabbed the application schedule property and thus, rleclared them as 'land grabbers'within the meaning of the Act XII of 1lB2 and directed petitioners - respondents to deliver vacant po:session of the application schedule property i.e. Acs.2.20 guntas to $,e 1st respondent - applicant within a period of two months from the c ate of receipt of the order, failing which, the revenue authorities were directed to evict the petitioners - respondents and handover vacant ph,/sical possession to the 1't respondent - applicant within a further perioC of two months thereafter and file a compliance report.

27. On behalf of the petitioners - respondents, t is vehemenUy contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the lst respondent - applicant though claims to have purchased the appl cation schedule property under a registered sale deed dt.04.04.198., and being In possession of the same, and having claimed of ha'.,ing undertaken agricultural activity till about 5 to 6 years prior to filing oF the application before the Special Court, inasmuch as nl land revenue receipts are filed by the l't respondent - applicant to prove the aforesaid claim, the Special Court had erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners - respondents to be in possession of the subject land .,.... 13 for over 40-45 years and they undertaking cultivation thereby, perfecting title to the subject land by adverse possession.

28. On behalf of the petitioners - respondents, it is also contended that since, the petitioners - respondents were in possession of the subject land for a period of 40-45 years, the necessary concomitant For being declared them as land grabbers under the provisions of the Act does not exist and therefore, the Special Court erred in declaring the petitioners - respondents as land grabbers on this ground also.

29. On behalf of the petitioners - respondents, it is contended that firstly in order to be declared as land grabbers, there should be an act of land grabbing by a person or group of persons without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, whereupon, only persons who resort to such act can be declared as land grabber.

30. On behalf of the petitioners - respondents, it is further contended that since the petitioners - respondents were in possession of the subject land, even prior to the 1't respondent - applicant purchase, and the l't respondent - applicant having purchased the application schedule land based on manipulated records without being 14 in possession, the petitioners - respondents cannot be declared as 'land grabbers'.

31. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is palced on the decision o1" the Apex Court in P,TMunichikkanna Reddy v/s. Revamml; Hindustan Aeronautics Employees: Co-operative Housing Society Limited Hyderabad v/s. Special Coutt (constituted under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibitittn) Act, 1982) Hyderabad and othed and M.Yadagiri Reddy v/s. V.C.Brahmanna and anothef .

32. Per contra, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent - applican would contend that the petitioners - respondents merely by claiming :o be in adverse possession of the subject land, cannot claim that the Special Court having wrongly declared them as'land grabbers'; that n order to claim and succeed in the case on the aforesaid ground, t'le petitioners - respondents are required to establish the factur,t of being in continuance possession of over 12 years; that being n possession of '1zooz1 o scc ss ' zooq (o) arr zzz (r.s.) t zoos 1rl arr so 1oe1 n 15 the subject land should be to the knowledge of the original/ real owner; that none of the documents marked by the petitioners - respondents show that they are in possession of application schedule land for 12 years; and above, though they claim to be in possession of the subject land for over 40-45 years; and that the Special Court had rightly negatived the claim of the petitioners - respondents with regard to the adverse possession noting that the same is without knowledge of the 1't respondent - applicant as they admit to the fact of they coming to know of the 1st respondent - applicant being the real owner only after filing of the present case.

33. Thus, it is contended that in order to claim adverse possession, the same should be against the real/original owner and to his knowledge and inasmuch as the petitioners - respondents have failed to establish the fact of being in continuous possession for 12 years and more to the knowledge of the 1't respondent - applicant, the Special Court has rightly rejected eh claim of adverse possession, more particularly, noting that the petitioners - respondents have no title to the application schedule land. 16

34. On behalf of the 1't respondent - applicant, it is further contended that the decision of the Apex Court on r,;hich reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners - respondents, wc,uld not advance their case as there is no evidence as to when U re petitioners - respondents disposed the lst respondent applicant and also that the petitioners - respondents are in possession of the app ication schedule land to the knov,rledEe of the applicant or for that matter, the petitioners - respondents being in continuous possessi(rn for more than 12 years prior to the filing of the case.

35. It is contended that the Special Court by noting as above had held that since the claim of adverse possession set up by the petitioners - respondents is not hostile to the applicant the owner, the petitioners - respondents are not entiued to claim adve-se possession.

36. On behalf of the 1'r respondent - applican:, it is further contended that since, he has shown and established his title to the subject property being claimed under a regisk red document dt.04.04.1981 and the application schedtile land havinrl been mutated after due enquiry by the revenue authorities, by enter ng his name in the revenue records vide proceedings No.BUBO11/84 and B1/g02Ug4 6 17 dt.29.11.1984, the lst respondent - applicant had discharged the initial burden cast on him in terms of Section 10 of the Act and thus, the burden of proving that the application schedule land has not been grabbed is on the petitioners - respondents; and that'the Special Court relying on the decision of a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited Hyderabad (2 supra), had held that the petitioners - respondents have entered into the land of the 1't respondent - applicant knowing fully well that they have no title and their entry is without any lawful entitlement and has thus rightly declared the petitioners - respondents to be'land grabbers' under the Act XII of

37. On behalf of the 1d respondent - applicant, it is further contended that though he had initially filed application claiming the petitioners - respondents having grabbed the land only to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, but by the time the Advocate-Commissioner is appointed, the petltioners - respondents had occupied balance land and thus, the 1s respondent -applicant filed interlocutory application seeking for amending the application prayer which duly allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on due consideration had allowed the same and 18

1.., the said order having attained finality, the petitioners - respondents cannot seek to raise a plea on the said issue claimin,l that change of cause of action being a question of law can be raised et any time.

38. By contending as above, the 1st respondent - applicant, seeks for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

39. We have taken note of the respective contentior s urged.

40. At the outset, it is to be noted that in a Writ perition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India agai,rst an order of Special Court, the scope of power of this Court has be:n dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of State of A.p. v/s. prameela Modi & Otherf, wherein it was held that the High Couft irr exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot convert itself into the Court of Appeal and cannot indukte itself in re- appreciation or evaluation of evidence on record.

41. Further, the Apex Court in State Of Andhra pradesh v/s. P.V Hanumantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrc. and Anr.,5 h3ld that against the decision of the Special Court, no appeal is prcvided and only o (zooo) r: scc raz ' lzoo:1 ro scc tzt (-, 19 remedy of aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under Afticle 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that remedy of writ petition available in the High Court is not against the 'decision' of the subordinate court, tribunal or authority, but"it is against the 'decision making process'. It is also held that right of the High Court to interfere in orders of sub-ordinate courts and tribunals, is limited, where - (i) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, such as when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard oF the provisions of |aw, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

42. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision further held that only when the Special Court refuses to admit admissible evidence and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding it can be held that there is manifest error apparent on the face of the proceeding to issue a certiorari.

43. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it would be clear that the scope of power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court cannot convert I 20 I .,i itself Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of eviderrce and the Court can interfere with the order of the Special Court where there is an error apparent on the face ol the proceeding, resulting in gross injustice occasioning gross viotation c f justice.

44. Keeping in view the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, in the facts of the present case, though o r behalf of the petitioners - respondents it is claimed of they being in possession of the application schedule land for over 40-45 years, inasmuch as all the exhibits marked by the petitioners - respondents do ilot establish the aforesaid claim, it cannot be said that the Special Co rrt had failed to consider the relevant document and on the other hand, considered irrelevant documents.

45. Further, it is also to be noted that thoug 1 petitioners - respondents claim to be in possession and hav ng undertaken agricultural activities In the application schedule land t eing claimed by the l't respondent - applicant, as the revenue reco.ds indicate the name of the 1st respondent - applicant being recorde I as owner and the land being recorded as 'padava' (implying 'vacant,), the claim of 21- the petitioners - respondents of they cultivating the subject land under their possession also stands falsified.

46. Further, the Special Couft by taking note ofthe fact that the petitioners - respondents having admitted to the fact of the 1s respondent - applicant being the owner of the subject land and they having come to know of the same only after filing of the case, also held that the claim of adverse possession can only be made against the real owner and since, the petitioners - respondents admit of the subject land being claimed by them as belonging to 1* respondent - appllcant only after filing of the case, cannot claim that their possession is open and continuous and hostile to the real owner in order to constitute adverse possession for more than 12 years as held by the Apex Court in P,T,Munichikkanna Reddy's case (1 supra).

47. Though on behalf of the petitioners - respondents, it is contended that the 1't respondent - applicant having initially filed application claiming the petitioners - respondents having grabbed the land only to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, and thereafter, having amended his pleading claiming that entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas having been grabbed by the petitioners - respondents, T 22 ( and thereby changing cause of action which ought rot to have been considered by the Special Court, it is to be noted that he Special Court had allowed the I.A. filed by the 1't respondent - appl canr, in the year 2074, and the parties thereafter, have proceeded ruith the matter knowing fully well the scope of consideration of the a tplication before the Special Court cannot be allowed to raise the sa d plea more so when the order in I.A. having attained finality.

48. Further, the petitioners - respondents having teken pat in the proceeding including the claim of the 1st respondent..applicant, they having grabbed land of an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas arrd also adducing their evidence to the aforesaid effect, this Court is of tre view that it is not open for the petitioners - respondents now to pletd the afcresaid issue and the submission in this regard is devoid of me it.

49. Further, the petitioners - respondents by the documents exhibited by them have sought to claim as that the application schedule land in Sy.No.74 being in their possession, the Special Court on examining the said exhibits having noted that the jame pertain to land in respect of Sy.No.76 and not in respect of Sy.No.74 being claimed by the 1s respondent - applicant, had rejected the claim ot the r petitioners - respondents. Consequence of rejection of the claim 0f the petitioners - respondents by the Special Court in respect of the extent of application schedule land in Sy.No.74lE, the natural corollary is that the petitioners - respondents have grabbed the aforesaid land of the 1't respondent - applicant without any valid title and entitlement and thus, their possession has to be declared as only by way of land grabbing as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, thereby, being liable to be declared as'land grabbers'.

50. The Apex Court in Konda Lakshmana BaPuii v/s. Government of Andhra Pradeshd having held that a person can be called'tand grabber'for the acts such as (a) unauthorizedly, unfairly, greedily, snatched forcibly, violently or unscrupulously any land (b) without any lawful entitlement and (c) with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, and subsequent action with respect to subject land, the petitioners - respondents herein having grabbed the land of the l't respondent - applicant unauthorlzedly, without any lawful entitlement, with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, i.e. the land in Sy.No.74lE to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas, it u (zooz) : scc zsa 24 cannot be held that the Special Court having erred in declaring the petitioners - respondents as'land grabbers'.

51. Futher, in a decision rendered by the Apex Court on 15.05.2025 in CA@SLP(C) No.1257012025, referring to the derision in Konda Lakshmana Bapujt) had held that though a claim is taised of adverse possession, as no proof was offered on which date s "rch construction was commenced and concluded and consequently held that mere possession without legal right still constitutes land gra tbing.

52. In view of the aforesaid analysis, in the considcred view of this Court the order of the Special Court in declaring the petitioners - respondents as land grabbers having resorted to grabbing land of the 1't respondent - applicant to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.74lE of Serilingampally Village, cannot be said as without considering the rele,/ant material or by considering irrr:levant material, thereby having erred in law or resulting in justice for being interfered with by this Couft.

53. Thus, Wrlt Petition as filed is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

54. Pendlng miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEFUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ \ To, One CC to Ms. SALEHA BEGUM' Advocate [OP One CC to SRI Y'RAMA RAO' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 I BSR BSw HIGH COURT DATED: 0910612025 I t ,l ORDER WP.No.27719 of 2008 1H E STAT e o 1 3 JJN M a nEs'^.-rcu t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS tb 6 €