| Headnote |
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: Sections 2 to 10,15 and 17-B. Land Grabbing-Offence of-Essential ingredients for-Object of the Act explained. Land grabbing-Appellant in occupation of land pursuant to lease executed by a person having no title-Notice of eviction served on occupant by Government-Challenge by occupant-No final adjudication by High Court on rival claims by parties-Suit filed by Government pursuant to liberty granted by High Court-Suit decreed by Special Court in favour of Government- Finding of Special Courts-It has jurisdiction to try the suit-Appellant had no title to the suit land was thus a land grabber-Appellant had not perfected his title by adverse possession-Decree passed by Special Court upheld by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, no interference was called for with the impugned judgment-Held, appellant was a land grabber- Principles of Res Judicata and Lost Grant inapplicable-Appellant had not perfected his title by adverse possession.Land Grabbing-Special Courts under 1982 Act-Jurisdiction in respect of matters under the Act-Held Special Court has jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts held ousted. Land grabbing-Allegation of-Presumption as to land grabbing- Burden to prove that land was not grabbed-Held, burden is on the land grabber to prove that land was not grabbed. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 11. Explanation IV-Res Judicata-Principle of Constructive Res Judicata- Applicability of.Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136. Appeal-Finding of Special Court that occupant was a land grabber- Neither relevant material excluded nor irrelevant material taken into account by Special Court-Finding affirmed by High Court-Held, no interference was called for by Supreme Court. Adverse possession-Claim of-Essential conditions to prove for-Both possession as well as animus possidendi must be shown to exist-Inamdar- Lessee of-Possession during continuance of lease-Such a lessee cannot acquire title by adverse possession. Easements Act, 1882 : Principle of Lost Grant-Applicability of. Words and Phrases-'Grab'-Meaning of.The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant has any lawful entitlement-proprietary or possessory-to the land in dispute and had come into possession of the land in dispute unauthorisedly. The appellant claimed his title to the land in dispute under an unregistered agreement, dated November 28, 1954 for perpetual lease executed by 'A' one of the successors of lnamdar in respect of Inam land. Subsequently 'A' executed a registered perpetual lease deed in favour of the appellant on December 11, 1957. Thereafter 'C' filed a suit against the first respondent and the appellant and others praying for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the said land. During the pendency of suit appellant was granted permission to construct a building on the land in dispute on his giving an undertaking that in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit he would vacate the building without claiming any compensation. The suit filed by 'C' was dismissed holding that he did not have any title to the suit land which was the Government land. Subsequently, the land in dispute was declared as Government land and under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act an order of eviction was passed against the appellant on May 28, 1977. The said eviction order was successfully challenged before a Single Judge of the A.P. High Court. The Government of Andhra Pradesh filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench. Though the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 came into force on September 6, 1982 but that fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which dismissed the appeal holding that there was bona fide dispute of title to the land in dispute between the appellant and the Government which must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary Court of law and that the Government could not decide unilaterally in its own favour and resort to summary eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Apprehending his dispossession from the land in dispute the appellant again filed a writ petition which was disposed by a Single Judge taking note of observations of the Division Bench in the writ appeal and the fact that the respondent-State Government had filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land in dispute on November 25, 1985. In view of the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 the suit of the first respondent-State Government was transferred to the Special Court. The appellant challenged the order of the transfer of suit in the High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition which was later dismissed as not pressed. The first respondent filed petition under sub-section (1) of Section 7 read with sub-section (1) of Section 8 before the Special Court on March 20, 1992 praying the Court to declare the appellant as a land grabber and the structure raised thereon by him as unauthorized and to order his eviction from the land grabbed and deliver possession of the same. The appellant filed his objections on April 10, 1992 denying allegations of land grabbing but did not object to the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The case of the appellant before the Special Court was that the land in dispute was part of Sarfekhas land and that after Inam lnquiry, ordered by H.E.H. the Nizam, Muntakhab was issued in favour of the Inamdar (Maqtedar) and thereafter succession was granted in favour of his vendor (lessor). It was also stated that the appellant had been in possession of the land from November, 1954 and that before him, his predecessors-in-title were in possession for innumerable years as Inamdars, so he was entitled to take on their possession for purposes of perfecting his title by adverse possession. On the other hand case of the respondent-Government was that there were wrong entries in the record of rights which were corrected by the Collector on October 5, 1959. It was stated, alternatively, if the land in dispute formed part of the Inam land the same had vested in the first respondent with effect from July 20, 1955, the date of vesting as per Section 3 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. None of the heirs of the alleged Inamdar appeared before the Collector, Hyderabad, for claiming registration as occupants under Section 10 of the said Act. The land in dispute was shown as Maqta land belonging to one 'N' for some time and thereafter as Inam land and the appellant claimed to be the lessee of 'A' one of the successors to the said Maqta; he occupied the said land in the year 1958 or so and raised a building on permission given by Court. The claim of the appellant was not proper, valid and legal because the land never belonged to the said Maqta. Even otherwise it vested in the Government with effect from the date of the Inams Act; the order of the Collector, correcting entries in the record of rights which order had become final. After considering the evidence adduced by both sides the Special Court decreed the case of the first respondent on April 16, 1993, It held that it had jurisdiction to try the case. If further held that the land in dispute was not part of Inam and that event if it was so, there was no valid confirmation of grant of the land in dispute by the civil administrator and consequently no title had passed to the vendor of the appellant and hence no title was obtained by the appellant. Consequently, the appellant was a land grabber. It also rejected the claim of the appellant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. Accordingly, it directed the appellant to restore possession of the land to the Government in terms of the decree. Assailing the order of Special Court, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court and the decree passed by the Special Court was upheld. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that (i) the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try the case; (ii) appellant could not be held to be a land grabber as his possession was alleged to be permissive by the respondent-Government and he was found to have prima facie bona fide claim to the property in dispute by the High Court while setting aside the order of eviction passed against the appellant; (iii) the High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the notice of eviction under the Land Encroachment Act, gave liberty to the first respondent-Government to establish its title in Civil Court, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal filed by the first respondent, although before the date of the disposal of the writ appeal the Act had come into force on September 6, 1982, the respondent-Government did not seek liberty from the Court to approach the Special Court, therefore, on the principle of "might and ought", it was barred from approaching the Special Court and the proceeding before the Special Court was barred by the principle of res judicata; (iv) the appellant who has been in possession of the land since 1954, on the basis of an unregistered agreement for perpetual lease perfected his title by adverse possession; (v) possession in assertion of one's own title was animus of adverse possession and that passing an adverse order against the appellant or the appellant himself filing an application to any statutory authorities for occupancy certificate would not interrupt his adverse possession of the land in dispute; (vi) even if the point of adverse possession is found against the appellant, the principle of lost grant would apply as he has been in possession of the land in dispute for a considerable length of time under an assertion of title; (vii) though perpetual lease agreement was registered on December 12, 1957, yet it would relate back to the date of agreement November 28, 1954 and (viii) in effect the suit of the first respondent-Government being a suit for declaration of title and ejectment of the appellant from the land in dispute, it ought to have been dismissed as the first respondent should succeed on the strength of its own title and it cannot take advantage of the defects in the title of the appellant to the land in dispute. |
