IMPORTANT POINTS
Bald allegations of illegality of sale deeds on ground of being forged, manipulated and fabricated after death of the alleged vendor do not come within mischief of land grabbing.
Special court has jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse possession.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Application of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") is involved in this appeal.

3. It arises out of the following factual matrix.

One Ram Katin Singh was the owner of a land measuring 16 acres, 30 guntas situate in Feerzadiguda Village, Ranga Reddy District in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Appellant claims that it was a joint family property. There exists a dispute as regards date of death of Ram Katin Singh. Whereas, according to the appellant, he died issueless on 22.02.1978, the respondents contend that he expired in 1992.

4. Appellant indisputably is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. The suit land is fallow. Respondents allegedly taking advantage of the death of Ram Katin Singh fabricated three fraudulent sale deeds dated 4.03.1980, 6.03.1980 and 17.03.1981 impersonating the said Ram Katin Singh. Respondents contend that Ram Katin Singh was the exclusive owner of the property and transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein by reason of the aforementioned deeds of sale. Respondent No. 1, in turn, transferred his right, title and interest by executing deeds of sale in favour of several persons. Respondents denied and disputed that the transactions entered into by and between Ram Katin Singh and the respondent No. 1, on the one hand, and the latter and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6, on the other, were bogus, sham or illegal transactions as alleged or at all.

5. Appellant filed an application before the Special Court constituted under the Act on or about 16.02.2002. It was marked as L.G.C. SR No. 442 of 2002. The Special Court by reason of an order dated 4.11.2003 dismissed the said application opining that the only question as to whether Ram Katin Singh was alive on the date of execution of the said deeds of sale in the year 1980, by itself, cannot be determined as foundational fact necessary for initiating a proceeding before it in absence of requisite pleadings.

6. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a writ application before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, which by reason of the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2007 has been dismissed.

7. Mr. G. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would

contend:

(i) The Special Court and consequently the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they failed to take into consideration that the Special Court had the jurisdiction to go into the question of title by and between the parties.

(ii) Appellant having pleaded the factum of land grabbing in the concise statement annexed to the application, it was obligatory on the part of the Special Court to determine the said issue.

8. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.

9. Before adverting to the core question, we may notice some salient features of the Act.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh noticed organized attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups, to grab either by force or by deceit or otherwise, lands (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private persons) as also the fact that the land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of lands through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain sections of the people resulting in large accumulation of unaccounted wealth and as thereby public order was also adversely affected now and then by such unlawful activities of land grabbers in the State in respect of urban and urbanisable land.

The Act was enacted with a view to prohibiting the activities of land grabbing in