Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Nawab Mohd.Kabiruddin Khan, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
M.Krishna Rao, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-06-96
LAND GRABBING - A. P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT - SECTION 2 (E), 8 (8) - TRANSFER OF SUIT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - INTERPRETATION OF ACT - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT AND JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of land. The defendants claimed title to the land based on a previous judgment and decree in O. S. No. 294 of 1980, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sought to transfer the suit to the Special Court constituted under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, arguing that the defendants' actions amounted to land grabbing. The trial court rejected the request for transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs' request for transfer of the suit to the Special Court was not bona fide and that the provisions of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act did not apply. The court found that the defendants were entitled to deal with and remain in possession of the land by virtue of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 294 of 1980. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the land at the time of filing the suit and that they had delayed in seeking the transfer of the suit to the Special Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the plaint indicated that the defendants committed acts amounting to land grabbing within the meaning of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit or whether it should be transferred to the Special Court constituted under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the expression "land grabbing" as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act requires that the status-quo as to possession of the land is sought to be disturbed by the alleged land grabber, who has no lawful entitlement of any sort in relation to the disputed land. This is an indispensable criterion for the grant of temporary or permanent injunction. 2. In the present case, the court found that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the land at the time of filing the suit and that they had delayed in seeking the transfer of the suit to the Special Court. The court also noted that the defendants were entitled to deal with and remain in possession of the land by virtue of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 294 of 1980. Therefore, the court held that the provisions of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act did not apply and that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' revision petition and upheld the trial court's order rejecting the request for transfer of the suit to the Special Court.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1543 of 1987 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City civil Court are the petitioners in this CRP. Thecrparisesoutof an order passed by the IV Addl. Judge on a memo filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking transfer of the suit to the Special Court constituted under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act for trial and decision. The memo was filed on 9-9-1994. The application was allowed by an order dt. 12-9-1994 and the Court returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court. Against this order CRP No. 3786 of 1994 was filed by the 1st respondent-defendant. On 13-3-1995 this Court set aside the aforementioned order on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the counsel for the defendant and the order did not disclose any reasons. The case was remitted to the 4th Addl. Judge for fresh disposal. After hearing both the counsel the impugned order was passed on 10-4-1995 rejecting the petitioner s request to transfer the suit. Aggrieved by thisorder the present CRP is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the petitioner s possession and enjoyment of an extent of ac7-00 situate msy. No. 202/2ofbaghlingampauy. Itisthecase of theplaintiff that the said land was granted to his father by Nawab Sir Khursheed Jah in 1347 fasli. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants land in Sy. No. 65, 66 and 67 is situated at Baghamberpet Revenue Village and it has nothing to do with the suit schedule land. It may be mentioned that as far as Sy. No. 65,66 and 67 of Baghamberpet village is concerned the right and title of the defendants and their predecessors in title was upheld in O. S. No. 294 of 1980 on the file of additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad and the said judgment and decree was confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme court is reported in AIR 1992 SC 797.
( 3 ) COMING back to the contention of the petitioners-plaintiffs, they alleged in the plaint that on 4-9-1987, defendants 1 to 7 trespassed into the plaintiff s land which is at Baghlingampally, removed the name board of the plaintiff high-handedly and started digging up the land and putting up boundary stones and sheds. The defendants denied the allegations. It is their case that the land which is being claimed by the petitioners in OS. No. 1543 of 1987 is nothing but the same land which was the subject-matter of dispute in O. S. No. 294 of 1980. The defendants contend that the subsequent suit filed by the petitioners herein is an instance of the abuse of the process of Court and is meant to circumvent the decree in O. S. No. 294 of 1980 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Venkata Ramaiah submits that there are sufficient averments in the plaint which unmistakably indicate that the respondents-defendants committed acts amounting to land grabbing within the meaning of A. F. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. If so the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal or Special Court set up under the Act. It is submitted that by virtue of Section 8 sub-section (8) the suit pendingin the Civil court shall stand transferred to the Special Court as if the cause of action on which the suit is based had arisen after the constitution of the Special Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of Ramakrishnam Raju, J. in Government of andhra Pradesh vs. Sathaiah. This decision is relied upon by the learned Counsel for three purposes: firstly, for the proposition any dispute in regard to the title to, ownership and possession of the land shall be exclusively tried by the Civil court and the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly implied; secondly for the proposition that application of the Act cannot be confined only to completed or concluded acts
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
