Important PointIn order to constitute an act of land grabbing, an attempt to dispossess must be followed by actual dispossession which would then constitute land grabbing so as to attract the penal provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982—Sections 2(d), 2(e), 4, 5, 30—Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950—Sections 38E, 47, 49—Land grabbing—Protected Tenant—Attempt made to gain possession of lands without actually obtaining possession—Former owner of lands sold lands to her tenant—Prior to execution of sale deed, tenant is purported to have sold an extent of 20,086 square yards from out of total area to one Mir Riyasat Ali—Out of the said 20,086 sq. yards, said R. Ali sold 8,866 square yards to Smt. P. and to one Chandra—According to these purchasers, legal heirs of tenant seller conspired to grab the lands which had been conveyed in their favour by Mir Riyasat Ali—Transferees from Mir Riyasat Ali and Chandra as well as Smt. P. continue to be in possession of agricultural lands—Whether opposite parties had acted in a manner in respect of the lands in question which would attract the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act—(No).
Held : The main issue which surfaces in these appeals is whether the actions arising out of the dispute raised by the heirs of Uppari Rammaiah can be said to attract the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Admittedly, the transferees from Mir Riyasat Ali and Chandra Ramalingaiah as also P. Neelakanteswar-amma have been in possession of the properties in dispute and at no point of time had their possession been disturbed. The attempts by the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah to dispossess the said transferees could at best be said to be an attempt to gain possession of the lands without actually obtaining possession thereof, which would not constitute an act of land grabbing within the meaning of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. We agree with both Mr. Venugopal and Mr. Nariman that in order to constitute an act of land grabbing, an attempt to dispossess must be followed by actual dispossession which would then constitute land grabbing so as to attract the penal provisions of the 1982 Act. (Para 46)
The scheme of the Tenancy Act of 1950 is reflected in Section 30 of the Act which prohibits sub-division or subletting of any land by a tenant or assignment of any interest held by him therein. The Preamble to the Act provides that it was expedient inter alia to amend the law regulating the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands and the alienation of such lands and to enable the land holders to prevent excessive sub-division of agricultural holdings. In our view, in a proceeding before the Special Court the only issue which fall for decision is whether there has been an act of land grabbing as alleged and who is the guilty party. The Special Court has no jurisdiction to decide questions relating to acquisition of title by adverse possession in a proceeding under the Act as the same would fall within the domain of the civil courts. The learned Special Judge apparently traveled beyond the jurisdiction vested in him under the 1982 Act in deciding that even if the provisions of Section 47 of the Act was a bar to transfer without the sanction of the Tahsildar, the occupants of the land had perfected their title thereto by way of adverse possession. Even on the question of the applicability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, we agree with the view taken by the High Court that when the initial transfer itself between Uppari Ramaiah and Mir Riyasat Ali was invalid, the question of application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act to such a transaction on account of subsequent acquisition of title by Uppari Ramaiah would not be available. (Paras 47 and 48)

Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J.—Applications for substitution are allowed.

2. All these appeals arising out of leave granted involve common questions of fact and law and have, therefore, been taken up for hearing and disposal together.

3. One Kaneez Fatima Begum was the former owner of the lands covered by Survey No. 65 to 74 of Yousufguda village governed by the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950. One Uppari Ramaiah was her tenant in respect of the said lands. From the materials on record, it appears that the said Uppari Ramaiah purchased 14 acres and 6 guntas of land from Kaneez Fatima Begum under a sale deed dated 1st May, 1961 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/- and obtained a certificate in respect thereof under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act of 1950") from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, West. Prior to execution of the said deed, Uppari Ramaiah is purported to have sold an extent of 20,086 square yards from out of the total area measuring 14 acres and 6 guntas to one Mir Riyasat Ali by a sale deed dated 8th February, 1961. Out of the said 20,086 square yards, the said Mir Riyasat Ali sold 8,866 square yards to Smt. P. Neelakanteswaramma and to one Chandra Ramalingaiah by a sale deed dated 21st November, 1961. Their names were duly mutated in the Town Survey Registers and in the Revenue Records. On the death of Chandra Ramalingaiah on 7th February, 1973, his share in the land devolved on his legal heirs, namely, his widow, Chandra Suryamba, and his two daughters, C. Raja Kumari and P. Sandhya Kumari and son Chandra Ramakoteswar Rao. Smt. Neelakanteswaramma and the widow of Chandra Ramalingaiah entered into an agreement for sale with Bhagyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society, but in view of the Government Order R.T. No. 3591 dated 1st December, 1975 and Government Order M.S. No. 189 dated 17th January, 1976, they could not execute the sale deeds in favour of the Housing Society.

4. According to P. Neelakanteswaramma and the heirs of Chandra Ramalingaiah, since the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah conspired to grab the lands which had been conveyed in their favour by Mir Riyasat Ali, they were constrained to file a complaint in the Special Court of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, being L.G.C. No. 32/1989. It was alleged in the complaint that the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, who were made respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in the complaint, executed three General Powers of Attorney in favour of one N. Srinivasa Rao, who was made the respondent No. 11. In the said Powers of Attorney, the facts regarding transfer of the lands by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riayasat Ali and the subsequent transfer by Mir Riyasat Ali in favour of P. Neelakanteswarama and the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant nos. 2 to 5 were suppressed and the property in dispute was described as the property of Uppari Ramaiah who had purchased the same from Kaneez Fatima Begum and after Uppari Ramaiah’s death, it was stated that the lands had devolved on the respondent Nos. 1 to 10, as his legal heirs. By virtue of a General Power of Attorney, the said respondent Nos. 1 to 10 authorised respondent No. 11 to convert the schedule property into plots and to sell and execute sale deeds in respect thereof in favour of purchasers. The respondent Nos. 1 to 10 also executed an Agreement of Sale dated 26th June, 1980, in favour of respondent No. 11 in respect of the said lands.

5. On the strength of the said General Power of Attorney and Agreement of Sale, the respondent No. 11 executed 5 registered sale deeds covering a part of the disputed lands in favour of one Ch. Laksminarasamma and five others, who were also impleaded as respondent Nos. 12 to 17 in the complaint before the Special Court.

6. On receipt of notice of the complaint, the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 entered appearance and filed counter affidavits. Respondent Nos. 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 259

Important PointIn order to constitute an act of land grabbing, an attempt to dispossess must be followed by actual dispossession which would then constitute land grabbing so as to attract the penal provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Cases Referred (13)