YunusKhan v. Bairewar Bharat

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto stay all further proceedings in LGOP No 4/2010 on the file of Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act' Cum-Principal District Judge' Adilabad' including its execution in respect of the plot bearing 53 admeasuring 30 x 60 bounded by East Plot bearing No'52, West House of Lingu Bai' South Road and North House of Laxmi Bai in Sy No 2/A situated at Rikshav Colony' Adilabad' pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of iustice' IA NO 10F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to receivethelinkdocumentsCertifiedcopiesofthesaledeedsofthepetitioneraS additional material documents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI V'RAVI KIRAN RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER {r,. '['Ft,1 HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD Kt MAR rIII] HON'BLE SMT.'US"CO P.SREE SLrI)HA \)/RIT PETITION Nos.I 3957 /tnd and 14201 of 2, )18 COMI\{( ,] I\I ORD ER : (Per Hon'ble Sri,Iustice T. i,-inotl Kut ,ar) liir r r: the petitioner in both the Writ petirions; is < ne and y this cor,^rmon or ler. the s::rre. thev are being clisposed ofb 2. I h es,: Wr.it petitions are filed feeling aggr.ieve, by the orders c,rr,:j 24-0g_2017 passed in LGOp Nos.3 and 4 ol 2010 on th€ ilr: 11. g6. Chainnan, Sr:ecial Tribunal fo .,\. r. Land Districr Juclge, Glabbinlr')rohibition) Ac1_curn-pri,cipal Adilabad (fcr short ,the Tr.ibunal,). J Hcar ,j S r i Sharad Sanghi, leanred counsel frrr th: pc itioner and Sri \,.I!r,,i I(iran Rao, learned counsel for both the $,rit I,eririons, and pelused the record. responr ent in 5 4 The pctiti,ner herein is r.espondent i, the afor,:sairl t ( oPs The crtsr, of the petitioner as pleaded in defence befo e the Tribunal is lhil cne Ambu Bai was the owner of Iand to an ( xtent of Ac.5.0() j11 i1 .No.2iA of Adiiabad; that the aforesaic{ lanc was purchased b,, o te l,axmaiah and Tajuddin in the year l,)74: that 2 the said Laxmaiah and Tajuddin had divided the land into 80 plots by making a layout; and that Tajuddin had made an oral gift in respect of plot Nos.52 and 53 admeasuring 200 sq' yds in favour ofthe petitioner in the year 1985'

6. It is the further case of petitioner that upon Tajuddin making oral gift in favour of petitioner and being put possession of the subject plots, he had constructed a small hut and living therein.

7. Petitioner contended that though the respondents herein had claimed to be the owners of the subject plots and the same having been encroached by the petitioner herein, claiming that the subject lancl being a Govemment land regularized in favour ofone Bheem Rao and the said Bheem Rao having sold the land in favour of respondent's vendor viz', L'Ravinder Reddy' who in tum sold to the respondents herein, the entire case of the respondents is based on the Xerox copy of the alleged regularization proceedings and the location sketch marked as Ex.A-6. l I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I l pro''ts1l .,t Triltu;ta l

8. ,rt js also contended on behalf of the petitior er that thc liad accepted the case of responde.nts of. t rey having tinn facie title to the subject prol)efiJl so ely on the r eport of the Tahsildar, which cannot bi rnol.e so when it does not give the, ba<:kgr, ,und as to : nitial owner of the subject plots viz , Gr,r,e6 lrr",r, taken as basi; ct conclusi,.,) wiro is th Bheetr Rro encroaching on to the Govemment sanre b,:ir. !l regularized in favour of Bheem t(ao, lvh r in tum sold rhe sl,t -le to L.Ravinder Reddy, who therea t r r favour ofrespondents h er rad rxecuted Ianr and the a sale rjer:ri eleln.

9. Pc,lilior r:r u,ould fil.ther contend that the An<lh,.a Il.adesh Land Grabbing (pro short ,1he A :: ), the initial burden is requ as pe,r Se rctiorr 10 of hibition) Acr. 19,t1 (f61 ired to bt: dischar 3ed by the applic rn r being th,: ,rpr{; them by,:sr.atrJi examinin3 Bh having beerr re having ber:n erLt tpproaching the Tribunal and respcndr:nts lrerein cants did not discharge the initial l;urden c rst on shing the flow of their title to the subject plc rs bv eern Rao, who had claimed the subject plots gularized in his favour by the Govt:m[re,t after :; oached by hirn. I ta' 4

10. It is further contended by the petitioner that since the claim of the respondents that initially the subject plots belonged to Governmentisnotestablished,the'claimoftherespondentsof they having purchased the sr"rbject plots and being put in possession of the same also cannot be accepted; and that the respondents helein except placing reliance on Xerox copy of Ex.A-5, which has been marked subject to objection' has not established his title to the subject plots for the petitioner to be declared as land grabber

11. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that though the respondents are claiming to have purchased the subj ect piots from L.Ravinder Reddy, who in tum had purchased the same fromBheemRaounderExA-5,possessionofthesubjectplots have not been delivered thereunder'

12.Itisfurthercontendedthatevenifthepetitionerhasnot proved the oral gift made by Tajuddin in his favour' no case can be made against petitioner as it is not for the respondents to claim that Tajuddin did not have any right to make oral gift of the subject plots being the joint property of Laxmaiah and TajudCin. x x 5 13 Pr,ti.ioner further contends that as per Molramr redan Law, an ol aj 11 ft is recognized as vaiid, subject kr fulfillir g the thr.ee condjii,: rr:; vj7., (i) offer (ii) acceptance and tiii) poss:ssion, and since T l rrdclin made an offer, which was ;lcceptec to by the petiricner, upon which possession having ber:n deliv, red to the petitioner lrerein in the year 19g5 itself and th,: petitio rer.having cons.rrLclec a small hut therein, the oral gift in r.e.sp ,ct of the subject p or5 js valid, and it is not open for the r:spc,rdents to assail ti:e i t.tion of Tajuddin iu making the oral gi{t in avour of the pcti. io r cr.

14. 'Ihrs, i is contended on behalf of the pr:titioner that the Tribunal r.lred in appreciating the evidence in ifs correct persper:tive while coming to conclusion and hoid rg the petitiorcr a,r land grabber of the petition schedule plc ts v 2., plot Nos'52 ar d 5 j admeasuring 200 sq. yards under trre Act. 15. Pet. cr.'rtiye, ls rTed counsel appearing on beh Llf of resPondern s. [,., drawing the attention of the Court to lire ti ,dings recorded irr the tmpugned orders, would contend that while petitioner clair.rs.to be in possession of the subject,rot. rro n the year 198! |resr rnably under the alleged oral gift, however. did 6 not prove his possession ofthe subject plots for the oral gift deed to be considered as having been acted upon.

16. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the report of the Tahsildar dated 28-10-2010 conclusively shows that subject plots admeasuring 200 sq' yards in Sy'No'2/A of Dasnapur village stands in the name of respondents as owners and that the petitioner herein having dispossessed the respondents in February, 2010'

17. Respondents further contend that contrary to the claim of the petitioner ofhe being put in possession olthe subject plots in the year 1985 under oral gift by Tajuddin and he having put up a hut therein, the report ol the Tahsildar shows erection ol a temporary shed rvith GI sheet roof'

18. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that though they had only filed Xerox copy of the regulatizatiot:t' proceedings issued by the Revenue authorities regularizing the plots of land in favour of Bheema Rao and also location sketch of the subject plots, the objection of the petitioner for marking the aforesaid documents was negatived on the basis of the report 7 of th,: Iihsildar, which confirmed that the subjccr p ots, at least in i:...:rr 2010, stood in the name of respondents apart from resl)ot1c€r.ts having purchased thc subject prots uncler a legist::rt:tl sale deed dated 29_06_2009 from L.Rrvin,ler Reddy, u'l-rc i t lt r n pur-chased the subject plots from Bhe:m , ,.ao on I 2- 0 I -2 0r.r9 claim n.1

19. It i. also contended on behalfofthe rurpondcn s that the petitiolrer except claiming that Laxmaiah and Ta-;udd n having pu rch a: ec the land from one Arnbu Bai in the y:ar 974 and r, have made a iayout consisting of g0 plots did not produ,:e ;, r.'', piece of evidence 1o substantiate tire foresaid claim/rsserlitn much less for Taiuddin to mak: ar or.z I gift of plot Nts.-5.1 ;rnd 53 in favour of petitioner after having allen to his sha-e

20. On behzlf of the respondents, it is also con:endrd that petition,:r. har ing put uP a case of Tajuddin havilg jointiy purchasr:d tl-( propefty along with Laxmaiah frorr Anrrru Bai in the year. tg,'.[, cannot gift the property in t]rc .rear l9g2 exclusivt:lv as f belonging to him and that the claim c,l.or rl gift was only -v t u1; in order to clairn title to the subject propertl I I l i

21. On behalf of the respondents' it is contended that the petitioner did not choose to substantiate the claim of oral gift by examining Tajuddin, since no relationship has been stated for Tajuddin to make the oral gift in favour of the petitioner'

22. On behalf of the respondents' it is also contended that a perusal of Ex.A-6 would substantiate the claim of respondents as tothelocationofland,andthus,therespondentshave established his title and the same cannot be called in question'

23. In reply to the aforesaid submissions' it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the report of Tahsildar is only for taking cognizance of the application made and cannot be the basis to decide the aPPlication'

24.Further,itisalsocontendedinreplythatintheabsenceof partition between Tajuddin and Laxmaiah' for Tajuddin to make an oral gift in favour of the petitioner is not open to challenge by the respondents herein'

25. In support of the contentions on behalf of the petitioner' reliance is placed 6n the decisio ns h Abdut Khudtlus & Ors Vs' I Rao State o.f .1.p. & Anrt, Stote of A.p. Vs. p.L,.Eanun.,onrha (Deorl) through LRs & anothel, Gouni Sa4,a 11"4r,, Vs. Govt. of .t.P. I otherss, Konds Lakshman Bapuji vs. tlovr of A.p. & oth,trva .t'tcr p.Mohan vs. speciar court undrer , r.p. Lantt Gralibin," iprohibirion) Act, Hyderobad antr anotherj 26. \\'e have taken note of respective contenti,tns ;.rrge l. 27. llr,fitr.: considering the submissions made on eith,r side, it is neces sirr.y to note the scope of Writ petitions orders oile Tribunal. file d a1 ainst the

28. A I)i,.sion Bench of the erstwhile High Court ot Andhra Prades.r in ),.Jangamma & Orhers Vs. Special (_oun under A,P.Lrntl G",tbbing (prohibition) Act & another6 :_u* r fcrring to the der:isio rs of the Apex Court in Kondo Lakshmon Bapuji (supr.a), aiso ftafe of Andhra pradesh Vs. p.l,.Hanumantha Roo (sul.r; ) and A.p.Hoasing Board othersT had held that the Vs. futrohammad Sadatullatr ! Writ petitior filed ' ls98(6) ALI) .lr , I )B ) - (200J) l0 st,( r r '(200J) 7 Sar. :q( o rzoo:l J sr ii :q " ?00716) aL,t . gr , tn I ;';,!;:,"";'r:i:,1,J:':;.HITi:5i.,,#;HJ"?iil,il,I^lT;,i,3:;;,,, ! i t i i i I 1 a 6 t! 10 against the orders of Special Court cannot be considered as an appeal. The Division Bench further hetd that judicial review is permissible to a limited extent when (i) the relevant material is excluded and irrelevant material is concemed (ii) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and (iii) a grave injustice or gross violation ofjustice is occasioned thereby. The Division Bench, by relerring to the decision in K.Surada Bai & another Vs' Smt'shamshunnisa & otherss ' heldthatwhentheorderoftheSpecialCourtispassedon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence' the Writ Coutt cannot interfere with the said order'

29. Though, on behalf of the petitioner elaborate submissions are made assailing the order of the Tribunal on various grounds' the contentions urged, however do not falt within the three parameters as detailed in the decision of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y'langamma (supra) forthisCourttoconsiderthesameinthepresentwritpetition.

30. Further, on behalf of the petitioner it was contended that one Laxmaiah *d tu.l,,ddit' having purchased the land to air '2008(2) scc 49 7L rnal rvould ext()nr. o'Ac.5.00 frorn Smt.Arnbu Bai in thr: year ll 74 and the saio ru,c people having divided the land into 80 plots, the appr:ndr { ()f eviderce annexed to the order of the ,frib shoiv tha t the petitioner herein did not ch,rose to mark any docun-:r ls or even the documents marked jn LGOj , No.4 of 2000 ,:lo:; not suppolt the claim of the petitirtner of one Iaju<[din rLnd Laxnraiah having pur.chased th(l li nd li,om Srnt.trrrbLr lai in the year 1974. On the other hanc, Ler pondents hereir n i e cross_examination by petitioner hac ur: r.ked the palrarri Lr:rr ka of thc year 1979_g0 showing t,re ,ame of Smt.Ambr. llai as owner of land to an exten t ol.Ac 5.00 in Sy.No.2, A I tnd recording the name of one .Rajesham Style' lreinl: rccorded as being in possession of the land. 3 I . 'f i o .rg'r , on beharf of the petitioner it was contenc :d that since [,u nrt rrh and Tajuddin intended to conve"t the la rd into plots fo;. ral: thcy inrmediately did not get it register.ed i I their names al( onl,, after getting necessary approvals irnd oon, erting the land inrc p 6f5, they got executed sale deeds irl farour rf the 1..,u1JLasers of the plots, it is to be noted tlat I ahani Bentlar intendir-r6 r j i i I I I I I I i t2 I Patrika of the year 1979-80 also records the name of Smt'Ambu Bai as owner of land to an extent of Ac'5'00 in Sy'No'2/Al'

32. Further, on behalf of petitioner though it is contended that Tajucldin having made an oral gift in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985, which mode of gift is permitted under Mahommadan Law, it is settled position of law that while an oral gift under Mahommadan law is permitted, hovrever in order to be considered as valid gift, three essential elements are necessary to make the oral gift valid' They are (a) gift has to be necessarily declared by the person giving the gift i'e' donor; (ii) such a gift has to be accepted either impliedly or explicitly by or on behalf of the donee, and (iii) apart from declaration and acceptance' there is also a requirement of delivery of possession for a gift to be valid. (See'. blansoor Saheb Vs' Salimd)'

33. Further, in the aforesaid decision, it was also held that the requirements for validity of a gift deed are sequential i'e' one must follow the other viz', declaration by donor followed by 'g 2024 scc online Sc a8o9h 13 accel)t,r ( e by the donee and delivery ofpossession n favour of lhe d,rn:: and thus, all the three conditions mtst t,e m :t. 31. 'l'hor gh, the petitioner. clairns of Tajuddin afiecti rg oral gift in h,s lar c ur., he having made construction of hut n tl : said land and re si,j;rg trrerein, no evidence has been praccc or record to appr lc ia ( lhe aforesaid su bmission. Mere clainr of petitioner bein11 ;,r pr sscssion. be it 6en51rus1ive or pemrissii,e p rssession, withc,u. ar \ lnaterial docurnent, the claim of the petitio rer to the said efli:r:r las to fail.

35. Or tlr,r other. hand, the r.espondents in suppon of th :ir clairn to the snb. r t t land had not only mar*ed the registcled r ale deed executerl lr., iy1.," I_.Ravinder Reddy in their lavour. rut also markerl rhe ; rle deed dated l2_|1_2l[gexecuterl execut(rd in i vour of L.Ravinder Reddy. b1, Bhe:m Rao

36. The re spondents, in addition to the markirg of.rel,istered sale deed. lrrrrl also marked copy of the patta cerlificatt dated 30-01-l )!,0 jr;r;uecl by the Tahsildar in r.espect of tlot No.;2 and 53 in ii),Ni, 2,Al of Dasnapur village whereby thr land encroacheri l:1 respondents, prcdecessor in title vjz.,tsheelrt Rao I 1,4 1f has been regularized in his favour' Thus, the respondents are claiming title to the subject land which has been regularized in favour of Bheem Rao, who in tum sold the same to L'Ravinder Reddy from whom the respondents had purchased land under sale deed.

37. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the Tribunal had erred in placing reliance on the verification report of the Tahsildar to accept the case of respondents, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show lhat the Tribunal while taking note of the regularization of encroachment in favottr of BheernRaoandalsothesubsequentsaledeedexecutedbyhim favourofL.RavinderReddy,whointurnsoldthesubjectplotsto respondents, had only referred to the report whereby it is sl'ated that the name of respondents finds mention in the records as owner. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the verification report' which is only intended for the purpose of taking cognizance' cannot be accepted as a valid contention for being accepted by this Court'

38. Further, it is also to be noted that since the petitioner is claiming the subject plots under an oral gift and when the said 15 clairn i:; rcstod against a registered sale dee,d urder which the respord:nts are claiming the subject plots, the p ,titioner rcquir.:d rr, establish of fulfilling the tluee ess,lntir.l co rditions of oral g ili. including having iawful possessicn rrf I rnd being clainreLl rr rder oral gift. Failing to establish, su,lt lawful possr'sr;ir: r r.vould result in r.egistered ,Jocuurel t taking precedt:nr:,: over the claint of oral gift fsee: Mattso,tr Soheb (supr,a il

39. 1'hoLrgir, a submission is also made o.i b,:hal,. of the petitioner tlr rt petitioner being in possession of fhe sub; :ct plots on ural<i rg iur oral gift by Tajudcrin in the year r 9g5 md rhus, the petitioner. rr l,ir-rg master.ed his title by way o1. adverse posscssit,u, t is settled law that claim of advers(, potisesr ion can only bt: -r.ea ilsr the actual owner of the prope ty. S ir ce, the petitionei c,: irns of being put in possession by virtue ot.r rai gift deed exer:ute r by one Tajuddin, the petitioner cannot c rim of being an',' i rlverse possession against the real ,rq,n:r i.e. responde:n:s

40. Furrh,:r.. jt is also to be noted that the petitione,r herein while claiming - 'u i ,iil, to be joint owter of land adrnear uring iI I I I 16 Ac.5.00 along with Laxmaiah' could not have made an oral gift of the land of which he is only a co-owner without bringing on record any material to show how he possessed the subj ect plots exclusively for him to rrake an oral gift for it to be considered as a valid offer, for this Court to appreciate the said contention and hold that the Tribunal having erred in holding the petitioner to be a land grabber.

41. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in Abdut Khucldus (supra) to contend that the respcndents had failed to discharge the initial burder.r cast on him by proving that the land belong to him has been grabbed by the petitioner, as noted herein above, the respondents, who is the applicant before the Tribunal had substantiated his claim to the sub-iect land ttnder a registered sale deed' Further' upon the respondents/complainants purchasing the subject plots of land' his uame also having been enlerecl in the records' the respondents/complainants had. discharged his initial burden cast on him for the Tribunal to take cognizance of the complaint for bring proceedcd with. i 17

42. ',It: other decision on ,,lhich relian,:e plac, d by the petilicnc r is in the case of p. VHanuontha Rac (Dca C) (supra), whe'e n rre Supreme court had herd trrat the r{igh co rrt in writ jurisrlir:ttor i-s justified in examining the docu[Lcnts an< upsetting the.jLrd*qr;r:nt of the Special Cour.t, it is to be u,rted thar the Apex Coul in tre aforesaid decision had categoricalll, obsr.rved that High cor-rr in writ juriscrictioa wourd be justi ied in e <a;nining the dr'c illr'i) rts of titre r'v.icrr rvere cither rejected cr or erlooked by the Spe r ial Court. In the facts of thc case, as noled a rove, the petitionc r .t:rein did not mark cven a single docunrcnt. .. case,eli,rd rr,o, by the petitio,er is of little assistanc: to rdvance hus, the his cas,:

43. T.l.Le olltr decision on r.vhich reliance is pla<:ed on b:half of the peti:i<rn,: . is the case of l(otdo Lakshnnn Bap4ii lsq,ra). A reading o1. tlt aforesaid decision would show tlat rhe l,on,ble Apex C,tr- 11 lirrving held that a person claiming tlre sub_je :t land should su<rcit.tl on the strength of his own case ard cann(,t take advantage ot Jre dcfects in title of others to the land ;n <J spute. In the fact:r t[ the present casc, as noted above, the peti,ioner except c [a m i I 3 the subject Iand under oral €:ift mac : by Tajuddin, hrd ,i iled to esrablish either the title of Trjud,lin ir the l I I I t i l I .; i l 18 e said property for hirn to make an oral gift in his favour, except seeking to dispute the title ofthe respondents herein on the basis ofthe report ofTahsildar without recording the background as to who is the real orvneL and as to the subsequent transfers affected' At this stage, it is pertinent to note that since, the petitioner is claiming the subject plots under oral gift deed made by Tajuddin, petitioner did not choose to examine the said Tajuddin, who stated to have made the oral gift of the subject land in order to establish his title to the subject lands. Thus, the aforesaid decision relied upon by the petitioncr would not advance his case.

44. The next decision on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is P.Mohtn (supra). By placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had ptaced reliance on the verification report subrnitted by the Tahsildar, which is only intencled fcr the purpose of taking cognizance' As noted herein above, tlle respcrrdents wliile apploaching the Tribunal had initially based ti.reir.case on tho saie clscrl executed in their favour and upon the respcnclents filing ihe applications, the Tribunal having called for rcport in tet'ms of Rule 6 of the Rules, rvhich 19 only cor:ol).lated the claim of respondents, it cannot be sr id that the decir,ic,n r, 'thc Tribunal is entirely based on .he .,c,r.il cation repon 01' t rr: l'ahsildar. Thus, the aforesaid deci ;ion u,<> Lld not advancc the r:;r ;e olthe petitioner any further.

45. Insc,li:r :s reliance placed by the petitior-rer on tLe cl cision of the Ape x (lourt in Gouni Satya Reddi V/s. (iot,ernnt,:nt of Andhra )"rtritsht,, it is to be noted that the ratio Iaid dru.r,, in the , ( afbresard i elision l.ras been impliedly overrulec[ bv t]re Apex Coirrt in tlre rlecision of the Mandal Revenue Olfic:e V/s. Goundlo l/ yrl r,,iuht I ,

46. IJavinr:, r egard to the discussion made as above and cor-rsidere,J 1r.o I r any angle, the order of the Tribunal ,.:anr ot be said as havinc been passed either excluding the rel:r,ant nti ter.ial or u,ithou,. <.orrr; dcring the relevant material or an (]n.or nra rilest on the thc: r1 rlc proceedings for this Court to set asi<l,-: thr said orders. I 'o 1zooa1 z scc :l B " 1zoto1 z scc a€ r .,,.-1c 20 47 For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petitions are devoid of merit' and they accordinglY dismissed. No costs'

48. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. t \ SD'-P. CH NAdAB HUSHAMBA EGIS ,/TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To, One CC to SRI SHARAD SANGHI' Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI V RAVI KIRAN RAO' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies '1. 2 3 BSR BS (A- t t HIGH COIJlIT DATED: 22't11#2025 ..:.,.1 7/.^;'.' tr . .' a'- L\. a gI4 I( Ci ll I rut ilH \a \s,1;.,, 11 ,. qEo 6 f' ;, ?_ .\ {t COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.13!)57 and 14201 ot 2018 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETTTIONS WITHOUT C I]STS @ ff;,"