Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Shaik Khadar Babukhadar vs Mareedu Venkata Rao on 11 March, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010267112018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3494]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
LAND GRABBING APPEAL NO. 7 of 2018
Between:
Shaik Khadar Babu @ Khadar
...Appellant/Petitioner
and
Mareedu Venkata Rao
...Respondent/Respondent
Counsel for the appellant : Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu
Counsel for the respondent : Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy
This Court made the following:
2
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon‟ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam)
The unsuccessful petitioner/applicant, aggrieved by the Order
dated 30.01.2018 in LGOP No. 633 of 2012 passed by the Principal
District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, preferred the present appeal to
set aside the impugned order. The said OP was filed under Section 7A
(1), Section 8 and Section 10 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act,
1982.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred
to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts as set out in the O.P. are that the petitioner owns
65 sq. yards of the petition schedule property in Sy.No.577 of Eluru
Municipal Corporation. The predecessor of the petitioner’s grand-father
Shaik Amma Saheb acquired remaining land in Sy.No.577 i.e., 171
Sq.Yards and his name was incorporated in the municipal records in
1959 as occupier and trustee of Imam Khasim Panja and using the
extent of 171 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.577 for religious purposes.
4. The petitioner assumed the role of Trustee on the death of his
father, who was functioning as Trustee, and has been conducting
religious meetings for the last 25 years. The petitioner is paying
electricity bills and taxes owed to the Municipal Corporation. The
3
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
respondent purchased the petition schedule property of an extent of
72 Sq.yards of land under a registered sale deed on 03.12.2009. The
respondent having knowledge regarding the ownership, purchased the
land and the respondent and his vendors grabbed the petition
scheduled property.
5. The respondent’s vendors have constructed the RCC building
without permission from the Municipality. After purchasing the petition
schedule property, along with the RCC building, the respondent built
the first floor, without obtaining permission.
6. The petitioner made a representation to the District Collector,
which was forwarded to the Revenue Authorities. As no action was
taken to stop the illegal activities of the respondent, the
appellant/petitioner filed a petition under Sections 7, 8, and 10 of the
A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’) to direct the respondent to evict the petition schedule land and
to re-deliver the same to the applicant after demolishing the structures
thereon, and to grant Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and
damages etc.
7. The respondent filed a counter asserting that he purchased the
property, which includes an RCC building and 72.1 square yards of
land, from Kantheti Suresh and Uma Maheswara Rao under the
4
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
registered sale deed vide Doc.No.7023 dated 03.12.2009. He obtained
a house loan from the UCO Bank of India, Eluru branch. The
respondent’s vendors’ predecessors in title purchased a total extent of
72.1 square yards under two registered sale deeds dated 02.11.1888
and 03.08.1925.
8. The respondent’s property covered under the sale deed was 72.1
Sq.yards, out of which 65 sq. yards fell under T.S.No.576 and 0.07 sq.
yards fell under T.S.No.577. The respondent’s vendors purchased
seven (7) sq. yards of property from the petitioner’s predecessors
through a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1909 dated 03.08.1925.
He pleaded that the petitioner holds no rights over the property and
sought dismissal of the petition.
9. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner / applicant examined PWs.
1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. Respondent was examined as
RW 1 and Exs. B1 to B5 were marked on his behalf. Exs.X1 to X5
were also marked. Ex.X1 is a Photostat copy of measurement sketch
of TS Nos. 576 and 577; Ex.X2 is a copy of an extract of the
Resettlement Fair Adangal and Ex.X3 is a copy of the survey register.
Ex.X.4, the Property Tax Assessment Register, and Ex.X.5, the
relevant sheet of the Property Tax Assessment Register relating to the
respondent’s house bearing D.No. 6B-1-6 for the year 2011-12 were
5
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
also marked. Commissioner’s report and report of the Tahsildar, Eluru
were marked as Ex.C1 and C2 respectively.
10. The Trial Court formulated the following points for consideration:
i) Whether the petitioner has proved his right, title and
possession over the petition schedule property?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for possession of petition
schedule property and for damages of Rs.1,00,000/-?
iii) Whether the petitioner has proved his case, to take
cognizance under Section 8 of the Act?
iv) To what relief?
11. The learned Trial Court, after thorough consideration of the oral
and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides and the
legal precedents, dismissed the O.P., inter alia holding that the
petitioner failed to prove his title and possession over the petition
schedule property and that the respondent is not a Land Grabber.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner / appellant contended that
the order of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case and outcome of improper appreciation of the
pleadings, the issues framed and the evidence on record, and that the
same is therefore liable to be set aside. It was also contended on
behalf of the appellant that the Court below has jurisdiction, and that
the vendors of the respondent illegally constructed the RCC building
without obtaining permission from the Municipality. After purchasing the
6
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
said land along with the RCC building, the respondent also built a first
floor without obtaining permission. He submits that when the
respondent attempted to dig a borewell in the petition schedule property,
the petitioner raised an objection and submitted representations to the
Collector on three occasions. Although these representations were sent
to the concerned revenue authorities, no proper action was taken to
stop the respondent’s illegal activities. The respondent and his vendors
are land grabbers.
13. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to
sustain the order under challenge contending that the same is based on
correct appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary and that
the no interference is called for.
14. On an appreciation of the rival contentions made by the parties,
this Court is required to consider the following question:
Whether the petitioner established the title to the petition
schedule property and whether the order under challenge
warrants interference by this Court?
15. Before dealing with the point, the gist of the petitioner’s evidence
may be referred to.
16. The petitioner was examined as P.W-1. His affidavit in lieu of
chief examination is reiteration of the petition averments. Though in the
7
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
cross-examination he stated that the document to show that the
predecessors of Imam Khasim Panja purchased the site in question, he
has failed to produce relevant documents to prove his title. P.W-3 has
stated that the entire Panja land is occupied by the respondent’s
tenants and vendors, who owned the petition schedule property. P.W.4
stated that according to Ex.X-3, Kanthe Venkayya and Ratnam (the
grand-fathers of the respondent’s vendors) owned 1287 sq. feet in
T.S.No.576. According to Ex.X-5, the building is in the respondent’s
name and was constructed after obtaining approval from the Municipal
Corporation. P.W.6 admitted that the respondent’s vendors are in
possession of the petition schedule property, which they acquired from
their ancestors. In 2009, the respondent purchased a house and a
vacant site situated on the western boundary of the petitioner’s property
from K. Suresh Babu and Uma Maheswara Rao. The ground floor was
constructed in 2004, and the first floor was constructed in 2009.
17. It is the specific case of the defence side that they purchased
land measuring 72.1 square yards under a registered sale deed dated
03.12.2009, which pertains to his vendor’s predecessors in title under a
sale deed dated 02.11.1888 for an extent of 65 square yards and 7
square yards under a sale deed dated 03.08.1925. As such, the
petitioner has no title over the petition schedule property, and the Imam
Khasim Panja land was let out to third parties. Ex.B.5 clearly
8
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
establishes that the trustees of Imam Khasim Panja sold seven (7) sq.
yards of land to the grandfather of the respondent’s Vendor. However,
until the filing of the petition, neither the petitioner nor his predecessors
in title challenged the sale deed covered under Ex.B-5 and kept quiet
for nearly 87 years. Be that as it may.
18. PW.1 in his evidence stated that their predecessors purchased
the petition schedule property, but he has no document to prove the
same. He also stated that respondent vendors constructed the ground
floor of the building and that the respondent extended the building by
encroaching on the petition schedule property. PW.2 – the sister of the
PW 1 had not stated anything worth noting in support of the case of
PW.1. PW.3 stated that the respondent’s vendors were in possession
of the petition schedule property, that they constructed the ground floor
in the petition schedule property in 2004, and that the respondent
constructed the first floor in 2009.
19. A detailed examination of the evidence on record clearly
establish that except making claim over the subject matter property, no
substantial evidence was adduced by the petitioner to grant the relief
prayed for and, therefore, the contention that the Trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence, cannot be accepted.
9
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
20. The Trial Court, in fact, recorded its categorical findings, which
reads as follows:
“o) All the factors on a cumulative consideration suggest that the
version of the respondent is more probable and is nearer to the truth.
Further, the self serving statements of the petitioner do not inspire the
confidence and the same appears to be far from the truth, and it is
without a doubt clear that the respondent has sufficiently repel the
presumption. In the light of the rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf
of the respondent, case of the petitioner pales into insignificance. So,
it can safely be held that the petitioner has failed to establish his
case.”
21. It is settled law that a person who claims title, ownership, or
lawful possession of any such land has to establish the same by
exhibiting relevant documents of his title, ownership, or lawful
possession over the land.
22. However, the buildings and structures existing on the land would
fall under the definition of ‘land’ in Sec. 2(c) of the Act. Section
2(e) defines `land grabbing’ as hereunder:
(e) “land grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of any land
(whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or
charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other
private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful
entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands,
or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licence
agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands,
or to construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give
such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for
10
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures; and
the term “to grab land” shall be construed accordingly;
23. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji vs Government of A.P. and
others1 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“Special Courts, equipped with the powers of both Civil and Criminal
Courts, could handle cases of alleged land grabbing, ownership
disputes, and lawful possession issues under the provisions of the
CPC and the CrPC. The Court‟s decisions are binding on all involved
parties. Mere allegations of land grabbing are sufficient to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Special Court, either suo motu or upon application
by any individual or authority.
To establish a case of land grabbing in civil proceedings, the
complainant must prove both in terms of fact and intention that the
accused has unlawfully occupied their land with the intent to illegally
possess it. The definition of „land grabbing‟ under Section 2(e) of the
A.P. Act, similar to the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act 2020, requires
lawful entitlement to the land to avoid being labelled as a „land
grabber‟. A mere prima facie claim is insufficient; lawful entitlement is
crucial.”
24. From the material on record, it is clear that the subject matter of
the dispute was not only the building having plinth area but also the
open land comprising an area. In the summary of the claim, the
petitioner specifically referred to “house and appurtenant land” and
alleged that the respondent’s vendors illegally constructed the RCC
building. After purchasing the land, the respondent also constructed the
first floor, and since then, he has been in occupation of the said
property. In such circumstances, the subject matter of the dispute was
1
(2002) 3 SCC 258
11
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
the building and the appurtenant open land. In Safiya Bee vs Mohd.
Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi2, it is held thus:
“13. The High Court also erred in holding that only occupation of
the open land and construction of a building thereon can be treated
as land grabbing and that occupation of a building along with open
land cannot be treated as land grabbing under the Act. When the
land along with the building existing thereon is occupied, it will
amount to land grabbing.”
25. However, in terms of Section 10 of the Act, the person who
invokes the jurisdiction of the Special Court / Tribunal is required to
prima facie prove his title and thereupon burden shifts to the opposite
party that he is not a grabber of the petition schedule land and in
possession of the same in his own right.
26. In the present case, PW-5, the Municipal Revenue Inspector of
the Municipal Corporation, in cross-examination specifically stated that
the property covered by Ex.X5 consists of ground and 1st floor in the
name of the respondent and constructed with approvals from the
Municipal Corporation. Ex.C-1, the Advocate Commissioner’s report,
along with Ex.C-2 i.e., the Tahsildar’s report, lends support that the
respondent is in possession of an extent of 72 Sq.yards of land covered
under Sy. Nos. 576 and 577 and more so, Ex. B-5, the sale deed,
clearly establishes that the trustees of Imam Kasim Panja sold 7 square
yards of land to the grandfather of the vendor of the respondent. The
2
AIR 2011 SC 421
12
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
said transaction has not been challenged for nearly 87 years, but the
petitioner filed the O.P. making allegations of land grabbing against the
respondent.
27. By adducing evidence, the respondent discharged the burden
and proved that he is in possession of the petition land in his own right
and made construction with the permission of the Corporation.
28. In view of the aforementioned conclusions arrived at on a
detailed examination and scrutiny of the record and the contentions,
this Court holds that the judgment of the Court below is well
considered, contains cogent reasons and warrants no interference, as
no illegality or error could be established. All the contentions advanced
on behalf of the petitioner / appellant are rejected. Accordingly, the
point is answered against the petitioner-appellant.
29. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
30. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
11th March, 2025
cbs
13
NJS,J & JS,J
LGA No. 7 of 2018
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
L.G.A.No. 7 of 2018
11th March, 2025
cbs