Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, K.C.BHANU
M.YADAGIRI REDDY - Appellant
Versus
V.C.BRAHMANNA - Respondent
Decided On : 12-03-04
Held : It would be enough, if it is prima facie proved the land alleged to have been grabbed to be the land owned by the government or by a private person and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed casts upon that person who is alleged to have grabbed the land The special court shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land grabber
To make out a case in a civil case that one is a land grabber, the person invoking the jurisdiction of the special court must specifically aver and prove both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention - that one falls in the categories of the persons mentioned in clause (d) of Section 2 of the act and he has occupied the land in dispute, which belonged to the applicant, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to or with the intention of illegally taking possession of such land or entering into the land for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (e) of Section 2
Merely not being entitled to get the possession itself is not enough to hold a person to be a land grabber unless the possession was taken with an intention to enter into possession illegally The mere fact of legally not entitled to the possession would not fulfil the ingredients of the definition "land grabber" and "land grabbing Mere fact that one is not lawfully entitled to enter into possession would not be enough to characterise one to be a land grabber and such entry does not amount to land grabbing unless possession is illegally taken with that view in mind the person taking possession must know that he is acting illegally while taking possession of the land
Key Points: - "Land grabber" means a person who grabs land without lawful entitlement and with intent to illegally possess it, or who gives financial aid, collects rent by criminal intimidation, or abets such acts (!) (!) . - To prove someone is a land grabber, both the act of occupying land without lawful entitlement and the intention to illegally take possession must be specifically proven (!) (!) . - The burden of proving that land has not been grabbed falls on the person alleged to be the land grabber once prima facie evidence is shown (!) (!) .
( 1 ) THE judgment of the special court under the Andhra Pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (for short the act ) made in l. g. c. No. 48 of 2002 dated 15-7-2004 directing the petitioner to vacate the schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the 1st respondent herein has been impugned in this writ petition. Facts in brief:
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the dispute between the parties are that, according to the 1st respondent, he had purchased the schedule land admeasuring an extent of acs. 12. 00 located in sy. Nos. 33/6 to 33/10 of chengicherla, ghatkesari mandal, ranga reddy district by means of a registered sale deed dated 21-5-1969 from one ponnapu chandraiah and others and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase. He got fenced the schedule land on three sides and no fencing was made on the southern side of the schedule property. His manager one d. Venkata rao visited the land on 3-8-2002, to remove the shrubs in the land for the purpose of development. The petitioner obstructed his manager. Though a police report was submitted, no action was taken. The petitioner has no title to the schedule property. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner has been trying to fabricate the documents with the connivance of the village assistant and revenue officials. Due to the acts and conduct of the petitioner in grabbing the land, he was unable to carry out the development operations in the land. The cause of action arose on 3-8-2002 when the petitioner grabbed the land and prevented his manager from proceeding with clearing of shrubs. It is alleged that the petitioner without any legal entitlement grabbed the land belonging to him.
( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf in the special court was that the total extent of sy. No. 33 is acs. 122. 00, there are no boundary stones or sub-division stones existing. The application has been filed by the 1st respondent only to usurp the land belonging to him. His own land is also in sy. No. 33 of chengicherla; he had no concern or interest in the application mentioned land. The description of the schedule land is incorrect. He has been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of acs. 20. 13 guntas for the last 20 years located within the boundaries whose details have been mentioned in the counter. He claims to be the pattedar and possessor of the land in sy. Nos. 33/10 and 33/11 in which there is an agricultural well with an electric motor; farmhouse belonging to him and also lemon and goa trees. The records reveal his possession of the land in respect of which he has been paying the land revenue. The land in his possession is fenced with barbed wire except on the eastern side, which is fenced with stone kadees.
( 4 ) A rejoinder has been filed by the 1st respondent with certain further allegations: the mandal revenue officer confirmed the version of the petitioner in his report dated 13-9-2002 sent under rule 6 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) rules, 1988 by stating as if the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for several years. The schedule, land has been grabbed with the connivance of the revenue authorities. The mandal revenue officer issued pahani for the year 1999-2000 without any basis. The mandal revenue officer did not verify the extent of the land in sy. Nos. 33/5 to 33/12 admeasuring acs. 12. 00. There is no basis for issuing the title deeds and pattedar passbooks in favour of the petitioner herein by the mandal revenue officer.
( 5 ) ON the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the special court for its consideration: (1) whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property? (2) whether the respondent is land grabber within the meaning of act xll of 1982? (3) to what relief?
( 6 ) THE special court upon appreciation of the evidence available
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
