Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya, Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadam, JJ
Shaik Khadar Babu @ Khadar – Appellant
Versus
Mareedu Venkata Rao – Respondent
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 Municip
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.
The applicant in land grabbing cases must establish prima facie title; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.
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
