SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA 
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, JJ.
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Appellant 
Vs.
K.krishnam raju - Respondent 
Writ Petition No.19369 of 2009 
Decided On : 21-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT TG

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.

Headnote:(A) Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 - The Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli - Writ Petition challenging the order of the Special Court declaring respondents not as land grabbers and recognizing their title by adverse possession - The Special Court found that the respondents had established continuous possession for over 30 years and had perfected their title by adverse possession based on the principle of tacking. (Paras 16, 48, 53)

(B) Adverse Possession - The court emphasized that a claim of adverse possession must be substantiated by evidence of continuous and uninterrupted possession, which the respondents successfully demonstrated through registered sale deeds and municipal permissions. (Paras 16, 48)

(C) Land Grabbing - The court reiterated that to be classified as a land grabber, one must occupy land unlawfully and without entitlement, which was not established against the respondents. (Paras 44, 48)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-State filed a writ petition against the order of the Special Court which ruled that the respondents had not engaged in land grabbing and had perfected their title by adverse possession over government land in Shaikpet village. The respondents claimed ownership through a series of registered sale deeds dating back to 1942. (Paras 4, 18)

Findings of Court:
The Special Court found that the respondents had established their title through adverse possession and were not land grabbers, as they had been in continuous possession of the land for over 30 years. (Paras 16, 48)

Issues: The main issues included whether the respondents were the rightful owners of the land, whether they had perfected their title by adverse possession, and whether they could be classified as land grabbers under the Act. (Paras 14, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents had established their title by adverse possession based on continuous possession and that the petitioner failed to prove any unlawful occupation by the respondents. The court also noted that the Special Court's findings were binding and not subject to re-evaluation in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 48, 53)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

(Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2009 in L.G.C.No.20 of 1999 passed by the Special Court under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Special Court’).

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the petitioner-State, Sri P.Rajam Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Ms. Samhitha Nimmala, learned counsel, representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.1, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 14.

3. Petitioner herein filed LGC No.20 of 1999 against the respondents herein alleging that respondents grabbed the land admeasuring 6484 sq.mtrs in TS No.1 Block-B, Ward No.9 and TS No.1/1/C/1, Block-H, Ward No.9, correlated to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, which is classified as ‘Government Poramboke’. 4. In the concise statement, petitioner averred that Shaikpet village of Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District was formerly a Sarf-e-Khas village and after merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli, the administration of the same was transferred to Diwani; that according to Sethwar, there were 353 survey numbers in the said Village; that Sy.No.129 consists of an extent of Acs.3288.02 guntas, which is classified as ‘Government land’ at Banjara Hills; that during 1331 Fasli, one supplementary sethwar was issued sub-dividing Sy.No.129 into ten sub-divisions as Sy.Nos.129/1 to 129/10; that Sy.No.129/1 consists of Acs.3097.39 gts., and balance extent of Acs.190.03 gts., was transferred to Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10; that during 1334 Fasli, another supplementary sethwar was issued deleting Sy.No.353 and in 1346 Fasli, one more supplementary sethwar was issued deleting sub- divisions of Sy.No.129 i.e., Sy.Nos.129/1 to 129/10 and 52 new survey numbers were added from 353 to 404 in respect of total extent of land i.e., Acs.3288.02 gts.; and after issuance of supplementary sethwar, Sy.No.129/1 corresponding to Sy.No.403 consists to an extent of Acs.3079.37 guntas.

4.1. It was further averred that Sarf-e-Khas regime conducted revised survey and in the year 1352 Fasli, the lands in old Sy.Nos.129/11 to 129/87 are shown as “patta land’’ as per correlation statement (Vasool Baqui Register); that during the years 1965 and 1970, town survey was conducted under A.P. Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act, 1923) and the above land was correlated to T.S.No.1/1/C/1, Block-H, Ward No.9 and T.S.No.1, Block-B, Ward No.9 and the same was published in Hyderabad Gazettee No.22, dated 18.04.1977.

4.2. It was further averred that application schedule land falls in the above survey numbers and correlated to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, which is classified as ‘Government Poramboke’ situated at Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; that Government earlier filed Land Grabbing Case Nos.72/1991 and 145/1985 against Manga Devi and Rajendra Prasad, respectively, for illegal occupation of the government land in the above TS Nos. and both the cases were allowed by the Land Grabbing Court; that in the month of January, 1998, revenue officials have conducted physical verification and noticed that the government lands were encroached by the respondents therein. Therefore, LGC No.20 of 1999 was filed to declare the respondents as ‘land grabbers’ and further, a direction to deliver vacant possession of the land along with all benefits they have accrued to the Government.

5. Respondent No.1 filed counter resisting the application and further, averred that the application schedule property forms part of Plot No.102, admeasuring Acs.2.15 gts., of Shaikpet village, which was originally a Sarf-e-khas property and the same was sold to one Abdul Samad by Jubilee Hills Municipality vide File No.164 of 1352 Fasli and the said sale was confirmed by the Sarf-e- khas authority through Letter No.244/2 dated 24th Isfandar 1352 Fasli and said Abdul Samad sold the said plot No.102 to T.V.Ramachandraiah under registered sale deed beari

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top