The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish lawful entitlement to land in land grabbing cases, and mere allegations are insufficient for relief.

JUDGMENT :

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

The unsuccessful petitioner/applicant, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.01.2018 in LGOP No. 633 of 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned order. The said OP was filed under Section 7A (1), Section 8 and Section 10 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts as set out in the O.P. are that the petitioner owns 65 sq. yards of the petition schedule property in Sy.No.577 of Eluru Municipal Corporation. The predecessor of the petitioner’s grand-father Shaik Amma Saheb acquired remaining land in Sy.No.577 i.e., 171 Sq.Yards and his name was incorporated in the municipal records in 1959 as occupier and trustee of Imam Khasim Panja and using the extent of 171 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.577 for religious purposes.

4. The petitioner assumed the role of Trustee on the death of his father, who was functioning as Trustee, and has been conducting religious meetings for the last 25 years. The petitioner is paying electricity bills and taxes owed to the Municipal Corporation. The respondent purchased the petition schedule property of an extent of 72 Sq.yards of land under a registered sale deed on 03.12.2009. The respondent having knowledge regarding the ownership, purchased the land and the respondent and his vendors grabbed the petition scheduled property.

5. The respondent’s vendors have constructed the RCC building without permission from the Municipality. After purchasing the petition schedule property, along with the RCC building, the respondent built the first floor, without obtaining permission.

6. The petitioner made a representation to the District Collector, which was forwarded to the Revenue Authorities. As no action was taken to stop the illegal activities of the respondent, the appellant/petitioner filed a petition under Sections 7, 8, and 10 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to direct the respondent to evict the petition schedule land and to re-deliver the same to the applicant after demolishing the structures thereon, and to grant Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and damages etc.

7. The respondent filed a counter asserting that he purchased the property, which includes an RCC building and 72.1 square yards of land, from Kantheti Suresh and Uma Maheswara Rao under the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.7023 dated 03.12.2009. He obtained a house loan from the UCO Bank of India, Eluru branch. The respondent’s vendors’ predecessors in title purchased a total extent of 72.1 square yards under two registered sale deeds dated 02.11.1888 and 03.08.1925.

8. The respondent’s property covered under the sale deed was 72.1 Sq.yards, out of which 65 sq. yards fell under T.S.No.576 and 0.07 sq. yards fell under T.S.No.577. The respondent’s vendors purchased seven (7) sq. yards of property from the petitioner's predecessors through a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1909 dated 03.08.1925. He pleaded that the petitioner holds no rights over the property and sought dismissal of the petition.

9. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner / applicant examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. Respondent was examined as RW 1 and Exs. B1 to B5 were marked on his behalf. Exs.X1 to X5 were also marked. Ex.X1 is a Photostat copy of measurement sketch of TS Nos. 576 and 577; Ex.X2 is a copy of an extract of the Resettlement Fair Adangal and Ex.X3 is a copy of the survey register. Ex.X.4, the Property Tax Assessment Register, and Ex.X.5, the relevant sheet of the Property Tax Assessment Register relating to the respondent's house bearing D.No. 6B-1-6 for the year 2011-12 were also marked. Commissioner’s report and report of the Tahsildar, Eluru were marked as Ex.C1 and C2 respectively.

10. The Trial Court formulated the following points for consideration:

i) Whether