The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Resp,>ndent No.2: SRI N A JAIRAJ The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI .ruSTICE T. YINOD KUMAR ANt) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.29943 of20l2 ORDER: (Per IIon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the older dated

25.06.2012 in L.G.O.P No.138 of 2010 passed by the Special Tribunal Cun.r Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'special Tribunal') under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for sholl 'Act').

2. Thc petitionel het'eiu is thr: r'espondent before thc Special Tlibunal in the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 herein as applicant under thc Ac,t vide L.G.O.P No.138 of 2010, seeking a direction against the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the subject property

3. The facts of the case i;r nutshell are that, respondent No.2/applicant filed the underlying L.G.O.P before the Special tribunal alleging that writ petitioner herein (respondent before the Special Ttibunal) has grabbed land to an extent of 225 square yards being plot No.2 in Sy.No.54 located at Chilakanagar, 2 Uppal, Rang r Reddy District (hereinafter referrecl to a; ,rubject ProPeftl'')

4. The rr spondent No.2/applicant contended thar. he is the absolute olr t:r ol the subject property, inasnruch r s had purchascd th: subject property vrrle registered srle ,lcec dated

04.01.19'91 f cm G. Panduranga Rao, rvho in turn had 6,ur:hased the sarne lirl, 'a registered sale deed dated.25.03.t968 tion One Annapr.r Ilash rtar Reddy.

5. The r', spondent No.2/applicant contende,l ttrat n his absence, the rvril petitioner herein without any right, t tle or interest unlavtully occupied the subject property. construcred a compor"rnd u ll1, and erected a tomporary shed. In I,ec:mber 2008, the rcslrondsnl No.2 approached the revenue aulhorities to take action ar ainst the writ petitior,er. However, as ro a lti )n has been taken. 1r: Iand grabbing case was filed against th: lvrit petitioner her 'in.

6. The ri,r t petitioner herein filed counter bett,re tht, S oecial Tribunal den,, ng the allegations made by the responci<,nt No.2 herein and ct ntended that he never encroached the land rt the respondent l.lo.2, which is allegerl to be situated in I)lrt No. 2 I I I t ; i I i : i , & I I { U .: I i ,i; I .x f ln Sy.No.54. The petitioner further contended that l're had ptrrclrased an open plot of land admeasuring 200 square yards being Plot No. 95 in Sy. no. 54, located at Chilakanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, vide registcred sale deed dated 13.12.2007 from one Sakku Bai: who ir.r tum purchased the same from Momeen Bee vide a registered sale deed dated 07.07.1993, acting as a Gcneral Power of Attorney holder of orre Bal Reddy and others who had executed a General Power of Attomey dated.

17.12.1991 in her tavor.

7. The petitioner herein furlher contended that on purchasing the open plot bearing No.95, had constructed a house bearing No. 2-20-6/12 altel obtaining permission and is in possession and enjoyment of the sarnc without any interruption and therefore, he could not be calle-d as land grabber, since he is a bona fide purchascr of the propefty and prayed to dismiss the LGC.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Tribunal framed the followir.rg issues lor consideration: (l) Whether the petitiondr is owner and possessor of the pet ition s chedule p ro per tY? 4 (.?) W'ttttlrcr the respitndents qre the lalncl ,gral,btr: of the pe t i ti o t .s c h edile property? (-l ) 7,, t'ltat relief?

9. 'fo suirstantiate the claim before the Speciul Tr.iirurral, the respondent -lt r,.2 got examined himself as p.W. I and lgot rnarked Exs.Al to A '. Er. A1 is a ceftified copy of a registered sa e deed dated 2li.03, !t68, through which Panduranga Rao hacl arquircd the suit pl,rt. Ex. ,42 is the registered sale deed clared Cr4.0..1993, through v,,hi :h the respondent No.2 purchased the J,lo from Pandulanga {'ro. Exs. z\3 and ,A4 are encurnbrance ctrti ficates confirming tte purchase of respondent No.2.

10. On beluLlf of the respondents, the writ petition:r. herein was exarninel as RW.l and Exs.Bl to 85 werc mar<erl. f'he Certified ,roF) of the registered sale deed datecl 13.1,_'..2007 marked as Er Bl, through which he purchased plot No, 9:i fi-om Sakku Bai Tl rr: registered sale deed dated, 07 .07 .l\)93. rLarr<ed as Ex. 82, throuqh which Sakku Bai purchased rhe p ot tiorn Momeen Bee :rcting as a General I)ower of Attornev ]ro de r. Tl-re General Powt r of Attorney dated 1,7.12.1991, marked as E<. 83, executed trv o tc Bal Reddy and others in favor of Morn:errBee. The Enc,rnb. Lrrce certihcate, rnarked as Ex. 84, *hictr r.eccrdecl II I i I I , I I i II I I .tt t I i ' t a ! I I I I I I $ t { t *t I ,t 5 the petitioner's purchase of plot No. 95. The receipt of the Hydelabad Metropolitan Water. Supply and Sewerage Board indicating a water supply connection to the petitioner,s property marked as Ex. 85. ll. The Special Tribunal, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the L.G.O.p. vide order dated.25.06.2012 filed by the respondent No.2 herein and directed the writ petitioners to vacate the application subject p.operty by removing the superstructurcs raised by hi,r at his own costs within two months frorn the date of the order..

12. The Special Tribunal had observed that both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are chinring dilferent plot numbers in the sarne surucy nurnber, yet the physical boundaries on the ground are similar. It is evident that with respect to plot No. 2, the vendor of respondcnt No. 2 was holding ownership since

25.03.1968. Subsequently, on 04.01.1993, respondent No. 2 had acquired ownership of the same through a registered sale deed.

13. The Special Tribunal obseled that, a perusal of Ex. Bl shows that at the time the plot rvAs sold, a house bearing No.20_ 6112 was existhg, and said fact conhadicts the petitioner,s claim \ , l I , I i I I I ! 6 that he ha<J p Lrrchased a vacant plot and subsequentll. ob,.ained permission t( construct a building. The Special Tribu na I also noted tha1. in 1:neral, municipal door numbers are assigle( [ only to properties rvith existing superstructures and not t() ..acant plots. Thus, rhe Special Tribunal held that it is clear thrt the petitioner acq ured a property with an existing superstructu. e and a municipal clool number, rather than a vacant plot as :[aimed. The Special '[ r]bunal further noticed that, if the responcfunl No.2 is the ori5lina rrvner of the plot, .the action of the pe.:ir iorrer in rnaking consl rrc[ion thereon will amount to thc act ol land grabbing.

14. The Spei ial Tribunal sought a report from the colrc.:med Mandal Revei rLe Officer, which was submitted on 06.(r7. 2009 'Ihe repot t of Iahsildar clearly establishes that the scl'l:cul,: plot is Plot No.2 br t the petitioner in possession of the sr-Lid plrrt 15, The SpecLrrl Tribural observed that, petitioner's title t< plot No. 95 can be traced through a chain of con.,,gyances trl in aLelv originatin5; to iimt. Momeen Bee, rvho acted as the Gr neral Power of .41to rrey holder for Sri Bai Reddy. Horvever. :hr said \ i 1 1 i I i 1 I I I t I I i I i I j I I I i ! { * I ! t I t I I 7 transaction does not find rnention in the Encumbrance Ccrtificate (Exhibit B4).

16. The Special Tribunal further observed that the title documents of the petition!-r aie subsequent to lhat ol the respondcnt No.2. The petitiorrer purchased the said plot under registeled sale deed tlated.l3.l2.2007 from Sakku Bai, who in tum pulchased the same on 07.07.1993. The above two docurlents are subsequent to the sale deed in favour of the respondent NIo.2. (i.e. dated. 04.0i.1993). In furtherancc the Special Tribunal observed that ttre title deeds of the petitioner are defective and merely by changing the plot number, the petitioner cannot claim ownership over thrr plot which actually belongs to the respondent No.2. Hence, by stating the above reasons the Special Tribunal had partly allorved the petition.

17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.06.2012 tn L.G.O.P No.l38 of 2010, the petitioner herein filed the present Writ Petition.

18. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, leamed counsel for Respondent No.2, and perused the record. .\ 8

19. The petir ioner herein contends that he is the absolure ,rrvncr and possessor ,rf house bearing No. 2-20-6112 construct,:d on an open land ,rdr r:asuring 200 square yards being Plot No 9i, Sy 54, locattc at Chilakanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy,' District, which rvas pur:hased vlde registered saie deed dated t3 12.2007 from Sakl:Lr B r

20. The Peti i-:ner contends that the Respondent No. -t las no larvful or legi i nate claim over the said property. While re is the owuer and po is,essor of land bearing Plot No. 95, rrpon r'h ch he has constructt c a building lawfully by obtaining permr s ;io n and ls ln peaceh l possession, the Respondent No. 2 hert in is claiming the r a me as by falsely alleging that the Peti:i,rncr has constructeC a r,tilding on his land, rvhich is factuall1,361l [,rgally untenablc

21. The peti itner contends that the claim of tlie r,;sp6ndsn1 No.2 l.rereir L is illegal inasmuch as the respondenr No.2 IS clairninrr the l rrperty by showing *rong boundalies, anrl i 'only the schcdule r'f plot shorm in the documents llled b,, the responder.it Nr . l, is considered correctly, it u,ould be el irler t that '! 9 the properfy being clainred by him is different frora th e propert5r owred by the petitioner.

22. The petitioner furrhel s6n1slrds that he is a bona fide purchaser of the land to an exlent of 200 square yards under the registered sale deed for valid consider.ation along with the house, however, the Speciar Tribunal grossry en.ed in not considering the oral and documcntary evidencc placed on his behalf. The petitioner further contends that Special Tr.ibunal has mrsconstrued the cvidence and docurnents placed on record and has giveu undue weightage to the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal.

23. The petitioner. contends that he is in occupation of the land purchased by him under register.cd sale deed. Therefore, he cannot be termed as land grabber and it is contrary to the provlslons of the Act and tire order passed by the Special Tribunal is pelerse as the order was passed by considering the irrelevant material and by not considering the relevant material, therefore, the same is liable to. be interfered rvith by this Court and prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment. 10

24. Per coiltt' t the respondent No. 2 contends that he is the absolute orvner of the Schedule Plot No. 2 in Survel' ltro. 54, having purr:har;:,1 the said plot under a registered sale dee,l c ated

04.01.1993 lro r G. Panduranga Rao, who in tum had a,;qrLired the same thloush a registered sale deed dated 25.03.19t68 Annapu llashuar Reddy. The respondent No.2 further :ont:nds that in his iLbs rnce, that the petitioner unlawlully occtrpiet. the subject propelt). constructed a compound wall, aLrd c'r,:ct':d a temporaD' sl'rr c. In December 2008, the responden' '''tro.2 approachccl tl'rrr rL'venue authoritics to take action agrrins thc petitioner'. De r 1,ite this, the petitioner's failed to vac rte the property

25. Thc Res6rndcut No.2 contends that, in the rcporl liled by the Mandal Rt r enue Officer, it is categoricall5' statecl tltal one Annapu Eashu ar Reddy is the pattadar of the total cxtent of land in Survey No :,1, ivho is the vendor of Respondent I'lo 2's vendor. The s: irl report further states that, as per the sur.'e), the subject propery is Plot No. 2 in Survey No. 54, but the ;arne is presently tr) t r,: possession of the petitioner. Thereti- re the petitioner has rrilarvfuliy encroacheC ttpon and is in p,,.59 ;5ie6 ot the lar-rcl L.elr,rLSiE to Respcnderrt No- 2. I t I i i I , I l 11

26. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

27. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner purchased plot No. 95 vide registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 fi.om Sakku Bai, who in turn acquired the plot from Momeen Bee, acting.as a Gcneral Power of Attorney holder vidc registered sale deed dated

07.07.1993. Momeen Bee acquired the property through the General Power of Attorney datetl 17.12.1991, executed by one Bal Reddy and others whereas the Respondent No.2 had purchased the plot No.2 vzde registcred sale deed dated

04.01.1993 from G. panduranga Rao, who had acquired the said plolvide a registered sale deed dated. 25.03.196g.

28. It is pertinent to note that the reporl subrnittecl by the Mandal Revenue Officer categorically. mentioned that the scheduled property is situated ilr piot No.2, Sy. No. 54 but the petitioner herein is in possessi<ln, which proves that the writ petitioner herein does not have any valid title to the land and has grabbed the land belonging to the respondent No.2.

29. It is also pertinent to note that the rcport submitted by the Tahsildar clearfy shows that thc total extent of land in Sy. No. 54 is Ac. 10-24 guntas and one z_\nnapu Eashwar Reddv is the L2 pattedar ol th: said land as per the revenue records. The sclrcdule propefiy i .e. Plot No.2 is admeasuring 300 Sq. v,rrc s has acquired by I I Panduranga Rao out of which 75 sq. 1,rrrc s w,as acquired firr ,rcad widening leaving 225 sq. yards, rvhic I ir turn was sold to the Respondent No.2 herein. In coLltrar t the petitioner i; i: i iming the Plot No. 95 in Sy. No. 54, adm:a;uring 200 Sq. larr s through a GPA,, in which no bounrl:rits are mentioned.'l'r,: said GPA was executed by one Bal Fieddy and others, ut,.rs. itle or ownership over the said propefl).hlLs not bcen establish:1.

30. Consir.ler rrg that the chronology of the title docurrLents filed by both the pe t tioner and the respondent No.2 it is appa.er t. that the title deecl ; of rhe petitioner are subsequent to tha c l the respondent Nr ,.l, The sale deed in favour of Respond,;r Lt ...,1o. 2 rvas registele,: :arlier in time and, being a registered do:unent, constitutes ni t cc to the public. Therefore, anv suL'se.luent conveyance i. lavour of the petitioner is illegal and doe; not cont'er virlrcl ti l:. Furtherm ore, in Srraj Lamp & Indu.stries (p) 1< 'l i L I 73 Ld'T,Dir vs srore of Haryona & Anrr, the Suprerne.court has held that: "Section 49 of The Transfer of property Act, lgg2 prot'ides tltat no document required by Section l7 to be registered sholl, affect any irnntovable properq) conrprised therett or rL'ceivcd as evidence of dny lransaclion affectetl " suclt properry, unless it has been registered. such a cloc l7 JI In accordance with Section 50 of the Registration Act read with section 3 ol the T.rr.f", of property Act the vcry regrstration of a document coltstitutes a notlce to the public. The effect of registration of a sale dced is a notice to the whole rvorld in respect ofthe property, which is the subject rnattet ofthe deed of conveyance or sale or transfer, mortgage etc., as the case may be". (See.. Jayesh D!*esh Kadau (tnd Another vs Andrew Davitl Fernandes2).

32. Considering the sale deed and GpA, the Sale deed prevails over GPA inasmuch as the GpA do not contain the boundaries of the subject property whereas the Sale deed does. It is well settled law that the boundaries rviil prevail over the extent and it is arso AIR 2012 SC 206 ' zoz+ scc orLibEb.n 2549 14 true that ii lLe vendors have any complication b;t\reen description ,:rf t,or.rndaries and the extent, the botrndali:s will prevail over th l en1s.1. (See: Dr. Jayasheela Venu ond A nt'tlter V/5. A.J.F, D',\iouza And Others3).

33. Further, 'r lrcrr there is ambiguity in regard to rneasul'erncnt and the fac- : r:it the controversy is in respect of a plot the principle tl.urt r [t:scription by boundaries rvould prevail c,vc r all other descrilrtir r s. (See.' Annntruo und Ors, vs. Begumbf )

34. The sullr: rre Court in Subhaga and Others v. Shttbha tnd Otherss held I urt "Il7ter ar ) properly can be identijietl either by boundari ts r b1, an)t othe,- sptcific description and if there is any dix'repu tcl ttilh regt,ni to ,:.ltnL, lhe bontlaries shouldprevail."

35. ln view t,l thc principte laid down in thc rlorcsaid judgments;. ,t ir rvell established that descriptiofl by br,und,u'ies prevail ovi:r':. I other descriptions. In the instant case a; roteci above the ;ale ceed of petitioner's vendor was executecl tlutugh the Generrl Pr,rver of Attomey (GPA), in which boundrrri:s o1- the said p lot u'ere not mentione d. On the contra y, the ' 2021 scc or L [i :irr 65 t tr,Lrtr.*U,KA',11 9'l r: -: t zoo6 (5) sr:rl l,io 75 respondent No.2 purchased thc property through a rcgistered sale deed with established boundarics. Therefore, the claim of respondent no. 2 prevails over ,he petitioner. JO. It is apt to r.efer to Section l0 of the Act, lgg2,which reads as follows: - "Burden of proof: _ ll4tere in any proceedings under lhis Acl, a lancl is alleged to have been grabbed, orul ,such lond is prinn facie proved to be the land owned by the Governntent or by a privote person, the Special Court or as the case mdy be, the ipc:ciat Tribunal sha!! pre.rune that the person who is alleged to have grabbetl the land is a lond_grabber and the burden of proving lhal rhe ran(t has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person.,,

37. Section l0 of the Land Grabbing Act mandates that the applicant beforc the Special Couft or Tribunal has to prinn facie prove his title to the application schedule property and once the initial burdcn of proving primafacie title is discharged by the applicant, then the burden would shift onto the respondents before the Tribunal or the Special Court to prove that he/she is not a land grabber and he/she is validly holding possession of the land. I I l I I I I I i I 1 : L6

38. In the in;rant case, as the respondent No.2/applican. had proved his; trit,a facie title to the subject propefty b1'aJdrcing documentat y r r iclence to that effect, the burden shiftecL on1o the writ petitic'rer .o prove his title to the subject property brt he failed to pror,: r ir al title set up by him.

39. Everr r,tLL'ruisc, the petitioner has not preferrcd any arpcal against the c,r cer of the Special Tribunal as providetl rmder Section 7A t'3 ol- the Act and has filed the present Wrt pe.ition in the presern<: : of an alternative remedy. The sectLon /.,t ( 3 ) of the Act leacls i s follows: ",471 Lrpltttl shall lie, fiom ony judgntenl or otder n'tt being intcrloct;t)'y ortler rtf the Special h'ibunal, to the Specicl llo rl on any\lue:,iott oJ law or of fact. Eyery oppeal under this:u't-.stclion shult ot reJirred y,ithin u period of sixty doys ./iom thr' c1 e o/' Judqn,er', t'r order oJ the Spccial 7'ribunal: Protrtletl t'tat the Specicrl Court may enlerloin on upptul oli:r the expiry o.t thr said period of sixfi, doys, if it is sati.\Jitd tl1lt tlle appclilnr l,ol sullicient uruse.fiir not preferring lhc q.4tt,tl yithiu tht, pe,'io,' t{ .sixly days."

40. Insofrl ar hc scopc and power of Iligh Courl und,:r' A:ticle 226 or 22'l o1't 1e Constitution of India, it is relevant t(.) ret'er to the decisicn o1 Ilon'ble Apex Court in Stote of A.P., v, lDr otreelu Modi onl t h?.,s4, wherein the Flon'ble Apex Courl h:lc ihat High Cortt ir' :xercise of its porver under Arlicle 226 crLnnot ' u 12ooo; t-r sr:c r, }' 71 convert itselfinto a Court ofAppeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence

41. Thus, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the scope and power of High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal. The Hish Court can interfere with the decis ion of the Special Tri unal only where there is an b error manifest and appare nt on the face of the proceedings and where it resulted in sross iniustice or it occasioned in eross failure \ of iustice.

42. In the present case, petitioner failed to place any substantial material, evidence on record to show that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land having valid title to the same. In fact, detailed analysig ofthe oral and documentary evidence placed on record would suggest that respondent No.2 is the absolute owner having valid title to the subject land having purchased under registered sale deed found his vendor has established his title to the said land and is thus, to be declared as the owner, while the writ petitioner to be a 'land grabber' 18

43. Ir t]r ) light ofabove discussion and legal position. th s Courl is of an ol inion that the petitioner lailed to point rrut an ., illegali[ or irl.cqtL arity in the impugned order passed by tl e Special Tribunal rarranting interlerence by this Court. Thereflrre, the Writ P,itit c,n is devoid of any merit and liable to be dis li ;sed.

44. .\cc: rJingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .,\s I sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending il ar y shall stalt([ clr]s:r.1. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// l \ I SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI .,DEF'U''TY REGISTRAR SEC TION OFFICER One CC to S;III RAMESH KATIKINENI Advocat\fOPUCJ Two CCs t,r (iP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State ,rf --elangana One CC to SF'l N A JAIRAJ Advocate [OPUC] Twb CD Coprr::; To, 1 J 4 KKS BS V t t t I I I I I l t '! t I I ( I l I , i i I t I ; i I HIGH COURT' DATED:28105t2025 \i \C] \TION COURT 2 DI{AFTS /4:,; o3* Sra 14: 0li ,lLil m z ((\ (- a ORDER WP.No.29943 of 2012 S:s CH t 6\) I DISMISSING 'I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COISTS 0 n\1 \ ^P \r