The act of land grabbing requires both the fact of illegal possession and mens rea, albeit the intent can be broadly interpreted under the Act.

JUDGMENT

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved with the fact that he has been accused and termed to be a ‘land grabber’ without due cause and directed to be evicted from the property which he duly acquired under a sale deed, wherein he had been residing from the date of purchase; that is from 27.03.1997. The applicant before the Special Court under the LAND GRABBING ACT [Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982] was concerned with 252 square yards of land in occupation of the appellant, which the applicant asserted, was a clear case of land grabbing, of a portion of the land belonging to the applicant admeasuring 555 square yards forming part of survey no. 9 of Saroornagar Village, Ranga Reddy District; which she purchased under a registered sale deed dated 01.01.1965.

3. Smt. Madhvi Diwan, learned Senior Counsel argued that the provisions of the LAND GRABBING ACT could not have been invoked against the appellant herein. The appellant, if at all, was a simple trespasser, who had bonafide purchased the property by way of a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1997 and had been in residence in a double storied building constructed on it. The appellant’s case was that the land had changed hands, over the years, he having purchased the land from his vendors who trace their title to a Housing Society, the 11th respondent. If at all, his title is in doubt, it is perfected by his predecessors-in- interest by reason of the principle of adverse possession since a two storied building occupied by his vendor was existing in the land for very many years. Learned Senior Counsel also took us to the decision in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. ,² (2002) 3 SCC 258 to impress upon us the constricted scope of the LAND GRABBING ACT and argued with specific reference to paragraphs 37 and 38. To term an encroachment or trespass as a ‘land grab’, under the Act, there should be obvious criminality and clear mens rea which is totally absent in the present case. It is argued without admitting, that, if at all the appellant is guilty, it is a simple trespass, for which the remedy under the Act cannot be invoked and one has to go before the civil court. It is argued that under the Act, a summary trial is conducted and only on a prima facie finding of the title of the applicant, the appellant is sought to be evicted.

4. Learned Counsel Sh. P. V. Yogeswaran, entered appearance for the respondents who are the legal heirs of the original applicant before the Special Court. It is pointed out that the Commissioner appointed by the Court, an officer of the Survey Department, clearly found the appellant having encroached into the property of the applicant. The property owned by the applicant by virtue of a deed of 1965 was in survey no. 9, while the sale deed produced by the appellant showed his property to be in survey no. 10. It is also argued that two suits filed by the appellant, one against the applicant and the other against the Municipality, failed miserably. The LAND GRABBING ACT brings in any encroachment of land within its ambit and scope, inter-alia, of a private individual and does not specify any limit on extent for it to operate. It provides a special remedy for evicting the person who has grabbed the land, which is rightly availed by the applicant.

5. We refer to the contesting parties as the applicant; who initiated the proceedings before the Special Court and the one alleged as a land grabber: as the appellant. We first looked at the decision in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji² to understand whether criminality a