The validity of an oral gift under Mohammedan law requires evidence of offer, acceptance, and possession, which the petitioner failed to prove, validating the documentary title of the respondents.

ORDER :

(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)

Since the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Writ Petitions are filed feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 24-08-2017 passed in LGOP Nos.3 and 4 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Special Tribunal for A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

3. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for respondent in both the Writ Petitions, and perused the record.

4. The petitioner herein is respondent in the aforesaid LGOPs. 5. The case of the petitioner as pleaded in defence before the Tribunal is that one Ambu Bai was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.2/A of Adilabad; that the aforesaid land was purchased by one Laxmaiah and Tajuddin in the year 1974; that the said Laxmaiah and Tajuddin had divided the land into 80 plots by making a layout; and that Tajuddin had made an oral gift in respect of plot Nos.52 and 53 admeasuring 200 sq. yds in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985.

6. It is the further case of petitioner that upon Tajuddin making oral gift in favour of petitioner and being put in possession of the subject plots, he had constructed a small hut and living therein.

7. Petitioner contended that though the respondents herein had claimed to be the owners of the subject plots and the same having been encroached by the petitioner herein, claiming that the subject land being a Government land regularized in favour of one Bheem Rao and the said Bheem Rao having sold the land in favour of respondent’s vendor viz., L.Ravinder Reddy, who in turn sold to the respondents herein, the entire case of the respondents is based on the Xerox copy of the alleged regularization proceedings and the location sketch marked as Ex.A-6.

8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had accepted the case of respondents of they having proved prima facie title to the subject property solely on the basis of report of the Tahsildar, which cannot be taken as conclusive, more so when it does not give the background as to who is the initial owner of the subject plots viz., Government and Bheem Rao encroaching on to the Government land and the same being regularized in favour of Bheem Rao, who in turn sold the same to L.Ravinder Reddy, who thereafter had executed a sale deed in favour of respondents herein.

9. Petitioner would further contend that as per Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), the initial burden is required to be discharged by the applicant approaching the Tribunal and respondents herein being the applicants did not discharge the initial burden cast on them by establishing the flow of their title to the subject plots by examining Bheem Rao, who had claimed the subject plots having been regularized in his favour by the Government after having been encroached by him.

10. It is further contended by the petitioner that since the claim of the respondents that initially the subject plots belonged to Government is not established, the claim of the respondents of they having purchased the subject plots and being put in possession of the same also cannot be accepted