Back
2010 (8) Supreme 631
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Safiya Bee — Appellant
versus
Mohd. Vajahath Hussain alias Fasi — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.10664 of 2010
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21199 of 2007)
Decided on : 16-12-2010
Facts of the Case :
An Application was filed by appellant herein in the instant case under Section 7-A of Act, 1982 before Special Tribunal, seeking possession of the house and the appurtenant land from the respondent alleging that he was a ‘land grabber’. An Order was passed by High Court holding that since the dispute in the case was in respect of a building with its appurtenant land, the matter would not come squarely within jurisdiction of Special Tribunal.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Definition of ‘land’ under Section 2(c) makes it clear that expression ‘land’ includes “buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth”. In view of such inclusive definition of ‘land’, grabbing a building attached to the earth amounts to land grabbing for purposes of Act. Hence, High Court erred in holding that the Act applies to the land but not to the buildings. High Court was clearly wrong in holding that “if an application is filed seeking possession of building along with its appurtenant land, because the building in question is in existence on the land and is surrounded by the vacant land, it cannot be said that it is a case of grabbing of land”. Held if a building along with the land on which it stands is the subject matter of the application under Section 7-A of the Act, such application is maintainable before Special Tribunal. High Court also erred in holding that only occupation of 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. Hence held that application filed by appellant under Section 7-A of Act before Special Tribunal was maintainable and that Special Tribunal had necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised therein. Impugned Order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was Allowed.
Result : Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. According to the appellant Safiya Bee, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969, she had purchased from one Mohd. Hussain houses bearing Nos. 2-5-254, 2-5-255 and 2-5- 256 along with the appurtenant lands. The respondent Mohd. Vajahath Hussain alias Fasi forcibly occupied the house bearing No. 2-5-256 (re-numbered as 4-3-65). The building has a plinth area of 1114 sq.ft. and the appurtenant vacant land has an area of 9341 sq.ft. Alleging that the respondent is a ‘land grabber’, the appellant filed L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Special Tribunal, Adilabad seeking possession of the house and the appurtenant land from the respondent. The respondent contested L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 and contended that he was not a land grabber, that he, his mother and his brothers were in possession of the disputed property in their own rights under law and that they were the owners of the disputed property. He also disputed the claim of the appellant that she had purchased the property as per registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969. He alleged that the registered Sale Deed was a fabricated and concocted document and that late Mohd. Hussain was not in a position to sell the property as he was not of sound mind at the relevant time. According to the respondent, the appellant did not have the financial capacity to purchase the house and there was no need for Mohd. Hussain to sell the house.
3. After considering the pleadings in the case and the evidence adduced, the Special Tribunal allowed the application on 13th June, 1997 and directed the respondent to deliver the property to the appellant. In its order dated 13th June, 1997 passed in L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990, the Special Tribunal held that:
(a) Mohd. Hussain executed the registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969 in respect of the disputed property in favour of the appellant after receiving the consideration;
(b) The appellant is the owner of the disputed property; (c) Mohd. Hussain was in sound state of mind till his death; (d) The respondent could not establish that Mohd. Hussain had gifted the northern portion of the house to his younger son Mohd. Zafar Hussain and the southern portion with its open land to his elder son Shaukat Hussain;
(e) The respondent has grabbed the disputed property and being a ‘land grabber’ he is liable to be evicted from the disputed land; and (f) The mother and the brothers of the respondent are not in possession of the disputed property and the respondent alone has been in possession of the property after grabbing it.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 13th June, 1997 of the Special Tribunal in L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990, the respondent filed an appeal being L.G.A. No. 30 of 1997 in the Special Court constituted under the Act. By its judgment dated 30th October, 1998, the Special Court allowed the appeal holding that the application was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal. Accordingly, the Special Court set aside the order of the Special Tribunal in L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 and directed the Special Tribunal to return the application to the appellant herein for presentation to a proper court if so advised. In the judgment dated 30th October, 1998, the Special Court held that since the application of the appellant was in respect of a house property which was alleged to have been grabbed by the respondent, it was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal. According to the Special Court, if an existing building itself is grabbed, the same will not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal or the Special Court and if land is grabbed and thereafter structures are raised, it may fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal or the Special Court. It was also made clear by the Special Court that in view of its decision that L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 was not maintainable b
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
