Adverse Possession Established Over State Land, Barring 'Land Grabber' Tag Under AP Land Grabbing Act: High Court - 2025-04-26

High Court Upholds Adverse Possession Claim Over State Land, Rules Occupants Not 'Land Grabbers'

Hyderabad: In a significant ruling concerning land disputes and the application of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, the High Court, comprising Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty , dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the State Government, affirming a Special Court's decision that private individuals occupying government land had perfected title through adverse possession and were therefore not 'land grabbers'.

The judgment, delivered on April 21, 2025 , arose from Writ Petition No. 19369 of 2009, filed by the State challenging an order dated April 17, 2009, passed by the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in L.G.C. No. 20 of 1999.

Background of the Dispute

The State had filed LGC No. 20 of 1999 alleging that the respondents had grabbed land measuring 6484 sq. mtrs in TS No. 1 Block-B, Ward No. 9 and TS No. 1/1/C/1, Block-H, Ward No. 9, correlated to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The State claimed the land was classified as 'Government Poramboke' and traced its history from the Sarf -e-Khas regime, its merger with Diwani , and subsequent town surveys conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, published in 1977. The State cited previous Land Grabbing Cases where illegal occupation of lands in the same TS numbers was proved.

The respondents, on the other hand, resisted the claim, arguing that the property formed part of Plot No. 102 (and Plot 101 for some respondents), which was originally a Sarf -e-khas property legitimately sold in 1352 Fasli (1942) and confirmed by Sarf -e-khas authorities. They presented a chain of registered sale deeds starting from the original purchaser, through subsequent vendors who obtained layout permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) and sold plots to the respondents. They contended that they and their predecessors had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession since 1942, had built houses with MCH permission, and were paying property taxes and utility bills. They claimed they had perfected title by adverse possession and were bona fide purchasers, not land grabbers.

Special Court Findings

The Special Court framed several issues, including whether the State was the owner, whether the respondents' rival title was valid, whether the respondents acquired title by adverse possession, and whether they were land grabbers.

While the Special Court answered the issue of initial ownership (Issue No. 1) in favour of the State and held the respondents' rival title (Issue No. 2) was not true and valid based solely on the purchase documents from the Sarf -e-khas purchaser ( Abdul Samad ) failing to show government demarcation or patta, it crucially found in favour of the respondents on the plea of adverse possession (Issue No. 3). Applying the principle of 'tacking' (adding the possession periods of successive occupants), the Special Court concluded that the respondents and their predecessors had been in continuous possession for over 30 years, perfecting their title by adverse possession. Consequently, it held that the respondents were not 'land grabbers' (Issue No. 4), noting their possession under a bona fide claim based on registered sale deeds and municipal approvals.

State's Challenge in High Court

Aggrieved by the Special Court's findings on adverse possession and the 'not land grabber' status, the State filed the Writ Petition. The State argued that the Special Court erred in concluding adverse possession, especially when the respondents claimed title through purchase deeds. It contended that adverse possession requires demonstrating open, notorious possession hostile to the true owner, known to the owner, which the respondents failed to do for the requisite period starting from 1942. The State relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah (2010), emphasizing the need for greater seriousness and circumspection when considering adverse possession claims against the State.

High Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 against the Special Court's judgment, as established by precedents like Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan (1963) and State of A.P. v. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (2003), limiting interference to cases of manifest error apparent on the face of the record or gross injustice, not re-appreciation of evidence.

The Court noted that the Special Court had appreciated extensive oral and documentary evidence (Exs. A1-A12 for State, Exs. B1-B98 for respondents) before arriving at its conclusions. The respondents had presented numerous documents including registered sale deeds tracing back to the purported Sarf -e-Khas sale, layout approvals from MCH, building permissions, property tax receipts, and utility bills, demonstrating continuous occupation and exercise of ownership rights since the early 1980s by the respondents and earlier by their vendors.

Crucially, the High Court referred to its own previous judgments in W.P.No.27888 of 1995 and W.P.No.9401 of 2003, concerning related parcels of land in the same town survey numbers. In those cases, the High Court had similarly set aside Special Court orders favouring the State, specifically holding that the private occupants had perfected title by adverse possession by tacking their possession to that of Abdul Samad (the original Sarf -e-Khas purchaser). The Court noted that appeals filed by the State against these High Court judgments before the Supreme Court were either dismissed or closed due to settlement, making those findings binding on the State.

Citing the evidence of long-standing possession, municipal approvals, tax payments, and the binding nature of the previous judgments, the High Court concurred with the Special Court that the respondents had indeed perfected title by adverse possession.

Regarding the 'land grabber' issue, the Court referred to the definition under Section 2(e) of the Act and the interpretation by the Supreme Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of A.P. (2002), which requires occupation "without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession". The High Court affirmed the Special Court's finding that the respondents' possession was based on registered sale deeds and a bona fide claim of right tracing back decades, supported by municipal records. This lack of unlawful entitlement or illegal intent, as per the Special Court and upheld by the High Court, meant the respondents did not fit the definition of 'land grabbers'.

The Court observed that the State had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its own possession over the subject land for more than 30 years and found no illegality or irregularity in the Special Court's judgment warranting interference.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the Special Court's decision that the respondents are not land grabbers and have acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession.