The provisions of the Limitation Act regarding adverse possession apply to cases under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, unless specifically excluded by the provisions of the latter act.

( 1 ) HE learned Counsel on either side have appeared. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard and disposed of.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 before the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act is the petitioner before us assailing the judgment delivered by that forum in L. G. C. No. 164 of 1994. Respondent No. 2 filed the case before the land Grabbing Court seeking relief against the petitioner as also Respondent no3 for acts of land grabbing alleged to have been made by them. Her case before the Court was that she was purchaser of Plot No. 60 in Survey nos. 41/1 and 474of Malkajgiri Mandal, R. R. District on 11-5-1992 and that the petitioner, who had earlier purchased the adjacent Plot No. 59 to the west of Plot no. 60, had encroached 55 sq. yards from that plot and that likewise Respondent no. 3, who was the purchaser of Plot No. 58 to the west of Plot No. 59 had encroached 45 sq. yards in Plot No. 59. The petitioner contested the case saying that he had purchased the house on Plot No. 59 on 3-9-1987 from V. S. Kathija Bee and M/s. G. Laxmaiah and Sons and that he had not made any encroachment on plot No. 60.

( 3 ) THE admitted facts are that Acs. 4-08 guntas of agricultural land in Survey nos. 41/1 and 474 of Malkajgiri Mandal, R. R. District, had originally belonged to one Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy and his three sons. The four persons obtained a certificate of exemption from Urban Land Ceiling Authorities to the extent that the land did not come under the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, and thereafter, converting the lands to house plots, sold the land to different persons. Plot No. 59 was purchased under Ex. B-3 on 21-11-1978 by Sri V. S. Kathija Bee, wife of Mohd. Hussain. She applied for permission to the Gram Panchayat, Malkajgiri Mandal for construction of a building on the land and with sanction accorded on 15-2-1979 and plan Ex. B-4 sanctioned, she constructed the house. A portion of the house was sold by her on 14-2-1985 to a partnership firm M/s. G. Laxmaiah and Sons. Subsequently on 3-9-1987, a sale deed was executed by Kathija Bee and her vendee G. Laxmaiah and Sons for the entire plot No. 59 of 340 sq. yards including the house bearing no. 24-89/3 and 24-89/3a to the petitioner. The sale deed is Ex. B-2. Respondent no3 had purchased Plot No. 58, an extent of 311 sq. yards, from the original owner of the land B. Rama Krishna Reddy and his three sons under Ex. A-3 sale deed dated 18-4-1979. So far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, she had purchased Plot No. 60 along with the house under sale deeds Exs. A-1 and A-2 from N. C. S. Sarma and N. C. N. Murty, who were brothers and purchased the land of an extent of 460 sq. yards from the original owners.

( 4 ) IN the proceedings before the Land Grabbing Court, an advocate- commissioner was appointed to measure the lands who was also provided with assistance of a surveyor. The report of the Commissioner is Ex. C-2 and the sketch prepared by the surveyor is Ex. C-4. In the report the Commissioner said that Plot No. 51 (sic. 58) has 89 sq. yards of excess land of which 45 sq. yards belongs to Plot No. 59 and 44 sq. yards belongs to others. Plot No. 59 has 9 sq. yards of excess land of which 1. 00 sq. yard belongs to others and Plot No. 60 has less land of 53 sq. yards.

( 5 ) THE Land Grabbing Court reached the conclusion that on a combined reading of Exs. C-2 and C-4 it was indicated that Respondent No3 had encroached upon 45 sq. yards of Plot No. 59 belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner had in turn encroached upon 53 sq. yards of Plot No. 60 belonging to respondent No. 2. Accordingly allowing the case of Respondentno. 2, the Land grabbing Court declared the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 as land-grabbers and directed the petitioner and Respondent No. 3, after demarcations of Plot nos. 58, 59 and 60, to put respondent No. 2 in possession of the entire extent of her purchased land within two months from the date of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document