IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The applicant in land grabbing cases must establish prima facie title; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.

ORDER :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Special Court’) in L.G.C.No.36 of 2007.

2. Heard Sri Jogram Tejavath, learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent no.1.

3. Petitioner herein is the applicant and the respondent no.2 herein is the respondent before the Special Court. Respondent no.1 herein is the Special Court.

4. The brief facts as narrated in the application filed before the Special Court are that petitioner is claiming to be the owner of house bearing No.12-10-379/A, admeasuring 48 square yards situated at Erukala Basthi, Zamistanpur, Sithaphal Mandi, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘schedule property’). The petitioner is claiming ownership by virtue of patta certificate issued in the year 1996 by the Revenue Department in her name; that due to family problems and ill-health, petitioner shifted from Zamistanpur village to Ramnagar on the advice of elders; that taking advantage of absence of petitioner, respondent no.2 grabbed the schedule property; that despite repeated demands made by the petitioner, respondent did not vacate the house and therefore, petitioner got issued legal notice dated 27.11.2006 to the respondent no.2 to vacate the premises; that respondent got issued reply legal notice dated 14.12.2006 denying the contentions of the petitioner. In those factual background, petitioner filed the Land Grabbing case against the respondent to declare the respondent as land grabber and to deliver the possession of the schedule property.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter contending that petitioner was never granted any patta and she never constructed a house bearing No.12-10-379/A and in fact, the schedule property belongs to Smt. Sayamma and she was residing in the said house. It is further contended that 2nd respondent and his family members are residing in H.Nos.12-10-379/1 and 12- 10/379/2 at Erukala Basthi, Zamistanpur and their possession was also regularized by the Revenue Divisional officer, Hyderabad on 24.07.1996 and D-form patta certificate Nos.G/4740/96 (7) and G/4740/96(10) was issued in the name of his wife K.Laxmamma and his mother K.Pochamma and they are in continuous possession of the said property. It is further contended that certificate relied upon by the petitioner is forged and petitioner had approached the MCH and Tax authorities and got issued a special notice in her name by GHMC only to create a false case. In fact, notice under Section 4 of A.P. Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963 (Act, 1963) was issued to his father during the year 1972-78 to pay assessment amount., which itself shows that his father was in possession and later a patta was issued in the name of his wife in the year 1996 and they are paying electricity and water bills regularly and finally it is contended that petitioner has no locus standi to claim schedule property.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property ?

(2) Whether the rival title set up by respondent is true, valid and binding on the applicant ?

(3) Whether the respondent can be termed as a land grabber within the meaning of the Act ?

(4) To what relief ?

7. To substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked.

8. The Special Court, on due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish title over the schedule property and therefore, held issue no.1 against the petitioner. Insofar as the issue No.2 is concerned, the Special Court held that 2nd respondent could able to establish title over the schedule