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) 2224

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, P. SREE SUDHA, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh – Petitioner
Versus
Vijayanthi Co-operative Housing Society – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19106 of 2010
Decided On : 28-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:The Advocate General
For the Respondent: M S Srinivas, Adv.

The burden of proof in land ownership disputes lies with the claimant; mere allegations without evidence of title or ownership do not suffice to substantiate claims under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act - Writ filed challenging the order of Special Court under the said Act - The petitioner claimed ownership over lands in Sy.No.74 and Sy.No.844/1 and alleged the respondents are land grabbers - The Special Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner as they failed to establish ownership and title - The respondents proved right over the lands through valid documents showing possession since 1950s. (Paras 1, 22, 124, 190)

(B) Land Ownership - The burden of proof lies with the petitioner/applicant to show ownership over the property - Mere allegations of land grabbing do not suffice to declare a party as a land grabber without evidence of ownership. (Paras 128, 189)

(C) Jurisdiction of Nazim Atiyat Court - The Nazim Atiyat Court does not have the jurisdiction to declare land escheated to the Government or adjudicate on ownership rights but to decide on compensation matters. (Paras 140, 141)

(D) Evidence Consideration - The findings of the Special Court are conclusive unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse, and mere doubts raised by the petitioner cannot negate the established title of the respondents. (Paras 124, 126) (E)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed and costs awarded against the petitioner of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No.1590. (Paras 191, 192)

Table of Content
1. scope of article 226 petitions and jurisdiction issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. claim of ownership under the a.p. land grabbing act. (Para 5 , 6 , 29)
3. evidence and documentation issues in property claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 18)
4. possession and public knowledge affecting property rights. (Para 19 , 20 , 39)
5. maintenance of property rights and legislative implications. (Para 24 , 30 , 45 , 46)
6. implications of nay evidence regarding trespass or land grabbing. (Para 58 , 62 , 85)
7. judicial review limitations regarding findings of special courts. (Para 124 , 125 , 126)
8. dismissal of writ petitions and costs awarded. (Para 189 , 190 , 191)

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/applicants, with the following prayer:

It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records from the Hon'ble Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (P) Act, Hyderabad in LGC No.167 of 1997 and consequently quash the Judgement and Decree passed by the Special Court in LGC No.167 of 1997, dated 18.03.2010 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice holding that the Government is the owner of the schedule property and declare the Respondents herein as land grabbers in respect of land admeasuring Ac.197.32 Gts in Sy.No.74 of Marredpally Paigah and Ac.27.27 Gts in Sy.No.844/1 and Ac.4.33 Gts in Sy No. 74 of Marredpally Paigah of Malkajgiri village, situated at Mahendra Hills Hyderabad and direct the Special Court to grant all the reliefs that were sought in LGC No.167 of 1997 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of this case.

2. The Writ Petitioner herein is the applicant in the L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the Act’).

3. The respondents herein are the respondents therein.

4. The Special Court on the request of the Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the issues involved in the following mentioned cases are one and the same clubbed the LGC No.167 of 1997 with LGC No.115 of 1999; LGC No.16 of 2008; LGC No.17 of 2008; LGC No.18 of 2008; LGC No.19 of 2008; LGC No.20 of 2008; LGC No.21 of 2008; LGC No.22 of 2008; and LGC No.23 of 2008, and by Common judgment dated 18.03.2010 dismissed all the LGCs filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed in L.G.C No. 167 of 1997, the present Writ Petition is filed.

I. Case of the Applicant before Special Court:

5. The petitioner/applicantthrough MRO filed the underlying application vide LGC No.167 of 1997 claiming the land admeasuring Ac.197.32 gts in Sy.No.74 of Marredpally (Paigah) and Ac. 27.27 gts of Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri village are classified as Government landas per pahani pathrika of 1356 Fasli; and that the respondents as shown before the Special Court have grabbed the same therefore, are to be declared as land grabbers under the Act.

6. The case of the applicant in the underlying application as set out in the concise statement in brief is as under:

i. The Nazim Atiyat in an application filed by Nawab Zaher Yar Jung conducted Inam enquiry of Paigah Asmanjahi and passed orders on 28.10.1968, wherein it was pointed out 107 Villages were escheated to the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed to the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, W.P.No.3530 of 1977 was filed and the same was also dismissed and then a writ appeal vide W.A.No.289 of 1978 was filed which was allowed by order dated 20.12.1993 directing the Board of Revenue to scrutinize the relevant revenue record and to ascertain whether the 72 villages form’s part and parcel of Asmanjahi paigah or not and to pass appropriate order.

ii. Further, there are no sub-divisions for Sy No.7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top