Back
2010 (3) Supreme 322
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.Sathasivam and Deepak Verma, JJ.
State of A.P. — Appellant
versus
Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3413 of 2010
[arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24345 of 2007]
Decided on : 19-04-2010
Facts of the Case :
An Application was filed by State of A.P under Section 8(1) of the Act before Special Court, against Respondents seeking a declaration that they be declared land grabbers in respect of schedule property and consequently to evict them and deliver vacant possession and to further award compensation to the State. Case of Appellant State that Respondents without having any right,title or interest on suit land, yet illegally grabbed schedule property and started construction of multi-storeyed complexes thereon.On consideration of entire evidence and material on record produced by both sides, Special Court dismissed suit filed by Appellant .Writ Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Looking to the matter in totality and from all angles it could safely be construed that prima facie Appellant-State failed to establish that Respondents were land grabbers of its land or the title of the land vested with the State.Thus, Special Court committed no error in drawing presumption in favour of Respondents that they could not be declared as land grabbers as contemplated under Section 10 of Act and the prima facie burden which lay on the Appellant that its land has been grabbed by them had not at all been discharged. On the other hand, on account of various sale deeds, mutation of their names in the T.S.L.R., Payment of Taxes and other documents, it was fully established that Respondents were the exclusive owner therof.Thus, the burden which lay on the Respondents as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act had fully been discharged- Narration of facts clearly established that Respondent No.1 had purchased said land from its previous owners whose names were already mutated in the land records and after purchase, Respondent No.1’s name came to be mutated in the records. Corporation number was allotted to it. It had started paying Corporation Taxes as well as NALA Tax and electricity dues. Its possession for last more than 60 years had never been disturbed. It had constructed multi-storeyed building only after obtaining sanction and permission from Municipal Corporation. It could not be established even in earlier litigation that land belonged to the State. No fault could be found either in the judgment and decree of the Special Court or in the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court, in Appellant’s writ petition. Appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J. —
1.Leave granted. Arguments heard. Record perused.
2.On account of illegal and unauthorized grabbing of Urban and Urbanized land in various metropolitan cities, State of Andhra Pradesh in its wisdom thought it fit and appropriate to bring an Act to curb this menace. The Act is known as Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 [hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘Act’].
3.Statement of Objects and Reasons discloses that it had come to the notice of Government that there are organised attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab either by force, or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including wakf or any other private person. The Government was further of the view that such land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and are indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain section of people, resulting in large scale accumulation of unaccounted wealth. It was felt that public order is likely to be adversely affected. Such unlawful activities of land grabbers had to be arrested and curbed by enacting a special law in that regard.
4.Keeping the aforesaid objects and reasons, initially, Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Ordinance, 1982, was promulgated by the Governor on 29.6.1982 as at that time State Legislature was not in session. But subsequently, the aforesaid Act came to be passed by the State Legislature.
5.Section 8 of the said Act deals with procedure and powers of the Special Courts which are to be constituted as required under Section 7 of the Act. A Special Court generally consists of a Chairman and four other members to be appointed by the Government.
6.Section 10 of the Act which deals with burden of proof, which is required to be considered primarily by us in this appeal, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the Special Court or as the case may be the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person”.
7.Plain and simple reading of the aforesaid provision would make it abundantly clear that an aggrieved person as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act is prima facie required to prove before the Special Court that the land is owned by such person and presumption that such person had grabbed the land would be against him and burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person. In the light of aforesaid provisions existing in the Act, we are called upon to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in W.P. No. 4432 of 2005 on 11.10.2007, titled State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and Another. Factual matrix of the case lies as under:-
8.State of A.P had filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Act before the Special Court, against the Respondents seeking a declaration that they be declared land grabbers in respect of schedule property and consequently to evict them and deliver vacant possession and to further award compensation to the State. The property in question is admeasuring 17,786.56 square meters of land in T.S. 4/2, Block-B, Ward No. 66 of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, now said to be in the heart of the city. The case of the Appellant before the Special Court was that in the town survey conducted in respect of Bakaram and Gaganmahal villages in the years 1355 and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
