Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, P. SREE SUDHA, JJ.
C.Vidya Sagar - Appellant
Versus
The Special Court Under A.P Land Grabbing - Respondent
IA.No.1 of 2019 & C.C.No.1751 of 2017 in/and W.P. No.24864 of 2008
Decided On : 09-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's grievance against the special court's order. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. background of land ownership and claims. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. allegations of land grabbing and related complaints. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. respondent's defense and counterclaims. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. further defenses and claims of possession. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. additional counterarguments from the second respondent. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. issues framed for trial by the special court. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. evidence and findings related to sale deeds. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. observations about land identification and boundaries. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. commissioner's report and its implications. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 12. discussion on the validity of the sale deed. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 13. finger print evidence and its conclusions. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 14. final conclusions on the legitimacy of the sale deed. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 15. further evidence related to the sale deed. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 16. court's ruling on the title and possession. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 17. court's observations on the high court's powers. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 18. analysis of the merits of the case. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 19. final considerations on land grabbing allegations. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 20. clarification on the nature of previous suits. (Para 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 21. final judgment and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 22. conclusion on contempt case. (Para 86 , 88 , 89) |
| 23. closure of miscellaneous petitions. (Para 90) |
ORDER:
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Since, the interlocutory application, Contempt Case are arising out of the writ petition vide W.P.No.24864 of 2008, they are taken up for hearing together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for writ petitioner/respondent in the contempt case, Sri Meher Chand Noori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.L.Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the writ petition/petitioners in the Contempt Case, and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for proposed respondent Nos.9 to 11, in the writ petition, and perused the record.
W.P.No.24864 of 2008
3. This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court,dt. 15.09.2008 in LGC.No.41 of 2002 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’).
4. The petitioner herein is the 1st respondent in the LGC before the Special Court. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein are the applicants, and respondent Nos.7 & 8 herein are respondent Nos.2 & 3 before the Special Court.
5. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein as applicants have filed the underlying LGC under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare them as owners of the application schedule land and to declare the respondents therein as land grabbers and to recover possession from the respondents and to hand over the same to the applicants.
IA.No.1 of 2019
6. This application is filed seeking impleadment in the writ petition as party respondent Nos.9 to 11 claiming that the writ petitioner/1st respondent in LGC had gifted the subject property admeasuring 1,000 sq. yards, cumulatively in favour of the proposed respondents under three separate gift deeds,dt. 16.03.2000.
7. The parties are referred to as per their position before the Special Court.
8. The applicants filed the underlying application before the Special Court claiming that the land to an extent of 1,202 sq. yards covered by plot Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4 in survey Nos.49 & 47(part) admeasuring 277.7 sq. yards, 284.5 sq. yards, 250 sq. yards and 390 sq. yards, respectively, situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, have been purchased by them under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.12745/1990,dt. 19.09.1990, 12732/1990,d
Possession without legal title constitutes land grabbing; the court affirmed the applicants' valid ownership based on registered sale deeds, invalidating the respondents' claims.
The definition of 'land' under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act includes buildings, allowing jurisdiction over claims involving both land and structures.
The court affirmed that possession without legal title constitutes land grabbing, rejecting the petitioners' claim of adverse possession due to lack of evidence.
The court affirmed that continuous possession for over 30 years can establish title by adverse possession, and mere allegations of land grabbing require substantial proof of unlawful occupation.
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
