Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
V. S. R. Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
K. S. R. Murthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land ownership and allegations. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments on invocation of the land grabbing act. (Para 3 , 4 , 12) |
| 3. court's interpretation of land grabbing definitions and requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal outcome and purpose of the act affirmed. (Para 11 , 17) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal and closure of pending applications. (Para 18 , 19) |
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 sal
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.
The court affirmed that possession without legal title constitutes land grabbing, rejecting the petitioners' claim of adverse possession due to lack of evidence.
The court upheld the Special Court's order declaring the petitioner a land grabber, affirming that ownership cannot be claimed through unregistered agreements of sale without valid title.
The definition of 'land' under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act includes buildings, allowing jurisdiction over claims involving both land and structures.
Failure to consider a report from authorities does not invalidate a court's ruling if the decision is supported by substantial evidence presented during proceedings.
Successors in interest inherit legal liabilities of their vendors, and the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act applies to properties with buildings.
The court affirmed that continuous possession for over 30 years can establish title by adverse possession, and mere allegations of land grabbing require substantial proof of unlawful occupation.
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
