IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO & B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, JJ.
Tutta Chinnayya & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Executive Officer, Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy vari Devasthanam & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 22256 of 2001 & 5847 of 2002
Decided On : 13-04-2016
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Section 7(1) - Abolition and Convert into Ryottwari Act, 1956 - Cognizance - Possession of grabbed land - Award compensation for wrongful and illegal possession of land as per prevailing market rate of land - Land Grabbing-cum-District Judge - Writ Petition was filed by more than in number who are all respondents in against Executive - Prayer in writ petition is to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in nature of writ of Mandamus to declare action of respondent not receiving amounts as directed by Special Tribunal for Land - Respondent to receive amounts as passed judgment supra and to pass other and further orders as Court deems fit and proper in case - Payment of compensation wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and declaring said direction as void initio and to pass other order or further orders as Court deems fit and proper in case - Rules made there to take cognizance of case and to enquire and evict respondents holding as land grabbers in nutshell is that land - Held, Coming to contention of adverse possession Division Bench of this Court in Registrar Special Court A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act Hyderabad held that even a registered society A.P. Society Registration Act comes within definition of person and as in case of land belonging to any other private person application made by Society for eviction of land grabbers is held maintainable - It was also observed that Special Court and Civil Court are equally competent to adjudicate any dispute on title and ownership and possession of any land in dispute by referring to several expressions including of Apex Court in another Division Bench expression of this Court - It was held that once jurisdiction is conferred on Special Court or Tribunal Land Grabbing Act it is an exclusive one with no right of Civil Court to entertain and exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court or Tribunal Act since ousts the jurisdiction of a regular civil Court Special Court got jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate any plea of adverse possession - Writ petition allowed (Para 11)
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
1. Writ Petition No.22256 of 2001 was filed by writ petitioners more than 25 in number who are all the respondents in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991 against the Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District (the petitioner in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991) (for short, ‘the temple’). The Prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent not receiving the amounts as directed by the Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing, Visakhapatnam vide order in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991, dated 15.03.1999 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent (Executive Officer of the Temple) to receive the amounts as passed the judgment supra and to pass such other and further orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Writ Petition No.5847 of 2002 was filed by the Executive Officer of the Temple by showing the Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) as proforma 1st respondent and others who are no other than the petitioners in the Writ Petition No.22256 of 200 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the direction issued by the 1st respondent-Tribunal in allowing the respondents in L.G.C. No.11 of 1991 dated 15.03.1999 permitting to continue in occupation of the site measuring 1536 Square Yards on payment of compensation a s wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and declaring the said direction as void ab initio and to pass such other order or further orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The factual background of the case is that the Temple filed L.G.C. No.11 of 1991 against the said individuals more than 25 in number before the Tribunal for eviction as land grabbers. The averments in the application under Section 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder to take cognizance of the case and to enquire and evict the respondents holding as land grabbers, in nutshell is that the land of 1536 square yards in S.No.275 of Adavivaram village belongs to the Temple and the Temple got lands in said village and four other villages and the same is not inam estate under Act 26/48 for the temple inam and the inam Deputy Tahsildar having conducted an enquiry under the A.P. Inams Abolition and Convert into Ryottwari Act, 1956, declare d the lands including the land in S.No.275 as inam land in the inam village belongs to the Temple. The land also stands in the name of the temple in the A-register as hill porambok. The respondents grabbed portion of the land within the said survey No.2 75, Adavivaram village covered by 1536 Square Yards or so and constructed thatched houses or pucca houses without any lawful right or entitlement and thereby to be declared as land grabbers and to be directed to re-deliver vacant possession of the grabbed land to the original owner which is the temple and to award compensation for the wrongful and illegal possession of the land as per the prevailing market rate of the land of 1536 Square yards at Rs.1,26,912/- in each of the respondents possession of the extents ranging from 30 Sq. yards to 50 Sq. yards each. The 1st respondent, main team leader, Tutta Chinnayya filed counter and others adopted and some of them remained even exparte, contending that the total extent in the occupation of Respondent Nos.1 to 16 is 18,500 square links which is occupied in the year 1977 and made constructions therein leave about the occupation of the others they do not know and they are in possession in the land over 12 years prior to the filing of the Land Grabbing Case and perfected title by adverse possession since paying property tax in their name to the Adavivaram Panchayat from the year 1987 and munici
Visweswara Swamy and Veera Raghava Perumal Devasthanam of Tirupur Vs. Collector of Coimbatore
Ganapathi Pandaram Vs. Collector, Coimbatore
Y. Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Andhra Pradesh
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao
V. Narasimhacharyulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Meka Kondaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
M. Shiva Kumar Vs. A. Bal Reddy
Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India
P. Lakshmi Reddy V. L. Lakshmi Reddy
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.