High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 8;h:,?YX'UNDER THE A.P.LAND GRABBING ACT, HYD AND ANR, ACt, f,r5fff A:.?'"" [Jiii.J#Bilv Ma ndar Reven ue orricer, sa roornasa r ..PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f

' constitution of rndia praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit.fiieo ,i"r"*'*i,",'r," High court may be preased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other uppropri"i".W,t and quash teh judgement ot the ist respondent in r-cc ruolo7; ',;dij iri;; i.,_.,r_roorand direct t-he 2nd respondent to forbear rrom,inrerterind *,ii-,r,.'i-J.iessron and enjoyment of the petitioners over the rand admeasuri,ig n" z.i, "c,r.i, -rhe sv.r.ro s3/.r, Mansoorabad ! Village, Saroornagar lrilandal' Ranga Reddy District and grant such other relief as it i""i.'t,t i" the ciicumstances of the case r.A. No: 10F 200 4(wPMP NO: 7733 0F 2004) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances court mav be pleased Lt-t""ttt respondent in l-3G ""Hio1 the affidavit riled in supoort':, il ;,,iol ii the ooeration and effect "ft:;uf,"g;;;i 1999 dated 31-12-2003 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl' V VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER stated in suspend No.67 of 1 1 I I I I l i i I ,] hlt. t' i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 5950 of 2004 ORDER: (Per Ilon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

31.12.2003 in L.G.C No.67 of 1999 passed by the Special Courr under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'Act').

2. 'l'he petitioners herein are the respondents in the L.G.C No.67 of 1999. The respondent No.2/applicant namely the State Government represented by MRO, initiated proceedings under Section 8(1) ol the Act, to declare the petitioners/respondents as land grabbers in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2-20 guntas in Sy. No. 93ll of Mansoorabad village, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to deliver vacant possession of the same.

3. The respondent No.2/applicant, contended that the petitioners./respondents had unlawfully occupied Govemment land admeasuring Ac.2.2O guntas situated in Sy.No.9 3ll of i ; 2 Mansoorabad Village, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the land in question was classified as "Sarkari Poramboke," meant for public purposes, such as constructi':n of Govemment buildings or quarters.

4. The respondent No.2/applicant contended that the father of the respondents, Kadamanchi Yellaiah, was in possession of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.92ll,106, 1 14, 115, and 118 adjacent to Sy.No.93 and had taking advantage of proximity, illegally encroached upon the said government land. Upon discovery of the encroachment, the Mandal Revenue . Officer (for short 'MRO') issued notice under Section 7 of the Act to substarrtiate his claim over the application schedule property, as respondents father failed to lespond or appear, eviction orders were passed under Section 6 through Proceedings No.8/67187 tlated

28.12.1988. Subsequently, in 1997, father of the respondettrs re- encroached upon the application schedule property and constructed a house measuring 147 sq. yards. The concemed authorities again issued notice dated. 24-07 -1997 and no ,lF i 3 explanation was given by the father of the respondents for the

5. The respondent No.2/applicant further contended that the application schedule property is not for assignment or regularization and that the petitioners/respondents continued unauthorized occupation of the tand irrespective of the eviction which makes them liable to be declared as land grabbers under Act.

6. The respondents filed a common counter affidavit, denied all allegations made by the applicant. They refused the claim that their father, Kadamanchi yellaiah, irad encroached upon govemment land, instead contended that he was a bona fide possessor of the land in Sy.No.93ll . In support of their claim, the respondents contended that their father,s name was duly reflected in the revenue records ofthe years lg54-lg5i,thereby indicating continuous possession over the said land. 7. The pet it ioners/respondents contended that they claimed to have been in continuous, peaceful, and unintemrpted possession of the land for over 50 years, which had matured into ownership 4 by way of adverse possession. The petitioners/respondenls also contended that their family had developed the land by digging a borewell, coustructing a residential house, obtaining electricity connection, and paying property taxes' The revenue and pahani documents (Exs.Bl to 863) evidences long possession and development of the iand.

8. The petitioners/respondents also contended that the eviction proceedings in 1988 lacked evidentiary support rrnd no panchanama ot' possession recovery documents were prodrrced by the applicant, Further contended that others situated in surrounding lands was granted pattas by the govemment' and that theyhadalsosubmittedapplicationsforregularization.rvhich were pending. The petitioners/respondents denied that they had ever acknowledged the State's title and claimed that pavment of Sivai Jama Bandi (unauthorized cultivation penalty) was either forced or irlegular, and did not amount to acknowledgment of government ownership. The petitioners/respondents contended that they had perfected their title through adverse possession and .., ,1 5 were not land grabbers AS alleged by the respondent No.2/applicant

9. The Special Court, by considering the claim of the respondent No.2/applicant and petitioners/respondents, had framed the following issues: I Whether lhe applicant hos title to the application schedule property? 2. Wether the respondents prescribed title by adverse possession? 3. meaning of Act XII of 1982'? 1. as prayedfor? 5. To what relieJ? Ilhether the respondents ore land grabbers within the If case of success, whether the applicant is entitled to prolits

10. In support of the aforesaid issues framed by the Special Court, on behalf of the petitioner/applicant, the MRO was examined as P.W.l, K. Ram Mohan, Mandal Surveyor was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-l to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the petitioners/respondents, respondent No.4 was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-63 were marked. I 1. The Special Court, by considering the oral evidence let in by the parties and also the documents marked, had held that the land admeasuring Acs.2.20 gts. m Sy.No.93/l of Mansoorabad F ,i I i i I ! I i I 6 Village is Govemment land, classified as "Sarkari Poramboke'" This classification was consistently reflected in multiple 'rlficial revenue recotds, including Exs'A5 to A8 (filed by the apllticant) andevenindocumentsfrledbytherespondents(Exs.B1to84 and B13). The petitioners/respondents themseives adnritted in representations and applications for patta and regularization that thelandbelongedtotheGovernment.Hence,theSpecialCourt held that the State holds valid title over the application schedule propertY.

12. The Special Court obserued that the doctrine of adverse possession, emphasizing that any person pleading adverse possession tnust demonstrate clear, continuous' open' hostile' and unintemrpted possession against the true owner' It found that the petitioners/respondent's possession' at best, was intermjttent and not for the entire extent of land. Furthennore, the iespondents had paid 'Sivai Jama Bandi', a penalqy for unauthorized cultivation, for several years, which amounts to acknowledgment of the Govemment's title to the application schedule property' 7 Accordingly, the plea of adverse possession by the petitioners/respondents was rejected. 13. In view of the findings, the Special Court held that the respondents are unauthorized occupants and land- grabbers of the application schedule property. Accordingly, L.G.C No.67 of 1999 was allowed, and the respondents were directed to vacate and deliver possession of the land within two months from the date of order. In case of default, the Mandal Revenue Officer concemed was directed to take appropriate action to evict the respondents and submit a compliance report under Rule 15(2) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (prohibition) Rules, 1988. 14' Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

15. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, leamed Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Govemment pleader for Assignment appearing on behalfofthe respondents, and perused the record.

16. Though, on behalf of the petitioners/respondents, an effort was made to re-appreciate the evidence adduced by this Court as adduced before the Special Court, it is to be noted that as per the I l I I l i I I provisions olthe Act, the findings recorded by the Special Courl as to whether the act of land grabbing has taken place and the person against whom the said altegation of land grabbing js made is to be declared as land grabber in terms of the Act, is conclusive (See : Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkiloh and anothey').

17. Further. i.t is settled position of law that while considering the Writ Petition filed against the order of the Special Court, the Writ Court is only required to consider whether the Special Court had excluded the relevant material and considered irrelevant material (See: S/a/e of A,P. vs. Prameela Modi antt othets2 and State of A.P. l/s. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (Dead) Through LRs and another3).

18. If the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions are applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the land situated in Survey No.93l1, admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas, is Government I (2olo) 2 scc 461 (2006) 13 scc t47 ' (2003) l0 scc 121 '? 9 I land duly classified as ,.Sarkari poramboke.,, This classification has been substantiated through documentary evidence filed by both the parties, including the entries in the pahani records marked as Exs.AS to Ag and Exs.Bl to B4. Furthermore, there is no material on record to indicate that the said land was alienated, assigned by way of patta, or regularized in favour of the petitioners/respondents. Hence, the petitioners have failed to establish any lawful claim or title over the application schedule property.

19. It is settled that a plea of adverse possession must be established by demonstrating open, "o.r,,ruorr, exclusive, and hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner, with an intent to claim ownership. In the present case, the petitioners admitted payment of .Sivai Jama Bandi,, a penalty imposed for unauthorized cultivation of Govemment land, clearly amounts to an acknowledgment of the Govemment,s title over the application schedule property. such recognition is inconsistent with, and indeed fatal to the claim of adverse possession of the petitioners. In addition, the revenue records revear intermittent 10 entries and notabie absences in certain years. The fact that the petitioners themselves submitted applications seeking palta over the schedule land further undermines their claim of adverse possession. The above said factors collectively negate the essential elements required to sustain a plea of adverse possession in larv.

20. In the present case the petitioners herein had placed icliance upon the judgments in OM Prakash Singh v. M Lingamaiah antl orsa, Mohtl Siddiq Ali Khan und Ors v. Shahsun Finance Limiled Chennai and Anrs, (lnion'of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and emphasized that the Special Coufi constituted under the Act, though vested with wide powers, lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes pertaining to title, which fall within the exclusive domain of the civiI courts. However, it is to be noted that the dispute in the present case does not pertain to a question of title, inasmuch as neither the petitioners nor their father have established any lawful title or o (2009) 12 scc 613 s 2oo5 (2) AtD 6?5 o (20r4) 2 SCC 269 71- I ownership over the subject land, but have merely demonstrated possession as reflected in revenue records dating back fo the years 1954-1955. It is well settled that revenue records cary evidentiary value and indicates possession but do.not conf-er title. Furthermore, the conduct of the father of petitioners in applying for regularization of the subject land clearly indicates the absence of any valid or legal title. In such circumstances, the issue squarely falls within the scope of land grabbing as defined under the Act. Thus, the precedents cited by the petitioners are not applicable to the present case and does not advance their case.

21. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners, having no lawful right, title, or authority to occupy the application schedule property, had re-encroached the said property subsequent to their earlier eviction by the MRO. Such unauthorized re_encroachment against the eviction order attracts the definition of ,,land grabbers" as contemplated under Section 2(d) ofthe Act. Further it is to be noted that the father of respondents being afforded due and adequate opportunity to present his craim in accordance with the statutory provisions, had failed to avail the opportunity and 72 l did not substantiate any legal claim before MRO. In vierv thereof, the respondent's continued possession is not only unla,,rrful but also deliberate, thereby rendering them liable to be declared as land grabbers undcr the Act.

22. In the present case, the petitioners failed to produce any substantial material or evidence to establish that they are in adverse possession of the application schedule property litr more than 50 years. On the contrary, a thorough and ,letailed examination of the oral and documentary evidence available on record indicates that respondent No.2 possesses valid titie and is the absolute owner of the said property. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be declared as land grabbers for their continued unauthorized occupation over the application schedule property.

23. In the light of above discussion and legal position, this Court is of an opinion that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal r.r,arranting interference by this Court.

24. Accordingly, the Writ petition filed is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. I 13 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.K SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUryR EGI SECTION OFFICER 1 OneCCt o SRl. V VENKATARAMANA Advocate PUCj to GP FoR ASSIGNMENT ,High court for the state of retangana ,'#,?a?"t Two CD Copies 2 3 KKS BS M- HIGH COURT DATED:09 t0612025 I ORDER WP.No.5950 of 2004 .( Tl{E S t4 ( o 10 lut. w6 t{ k z -f. I )t ICHT:n + DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 T 1 1[