In land grabbing disputes, once an applicant establishes prima facie title via registered sale deeds, the burden shifts to the respondents to prove superior title. Revenue entries or unapproved layouts cannot extinguish valid title, and a party cannot simultaneously claim ownership and adverse possession.

W.P.No.21310 of 2004

Between :

Ms.P.Vijaya Lakshmi and another

… Petitioners

And

1. N.Krishna Rao S/o Late Srinivasa Rao and 21 others.

… Respondents.

COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

1. Since these Writ Petitions arise out of L.G.C.No.48 of 2000, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr.T.S.R.Praneeth along with Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents in all these Writ Petitions.

3. The present Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the 1982 Act’) Hyderabad, in L.G.C.No.48 of 2000 and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law.

4. Among the respondents before the learned Special Court, respondent Nos.11, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 have filed W.P.No.22803 of 2006. Respondent Nos.15 and 16 have filed W.P.No.21310 of 2006. Respondent No.10 has filed W.P.No.22484 of 2006, assailing the common judgment in L.G.C.No.48 of 2000, while the remaining respondents have not challenged the said judgment.

5. The parties herein are referred to as per their status before the learned Special Court.

6. The case of the applicant. before the Special Court, in brief, is that he had purchased land admeasuring Acs.4.20 guntas equivalent to 21,780 square yards in Sy.No.101 of Katedan Village, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deeds dated 06.11.1963 and 26.03.1965, forming part of the schedule land in the LGC. His name was also mutated in the revenue records as possessor and pattadar. Subsequently, Sy.No.101 was sub-divided into 101/E of Katedan Village by the Survey and Settlement Department.

7. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1 to 5 in LGC claiming themselves to be owners and possessors of the schedule land created fictitious sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 13 and got them registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office.

8. The applicant contended that for the purpose of construction of go downs for his factory, he requested the revenue authorities to demarcate the subject land, but in spite of long lapse of time, the authorities failed to comply with his request. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.13498 of 1995 before this Court, whereunder this Court directed the concerned authorities to demarcate the land. Pursuant thereto, on 21.05.1998, the Surveyor in the presence of Panchas identified and demarcated the land by fixing the boundaries. In the said survey report, the Surveyor clearly stated that respondent Nos.1 to 13 grabbed the portion of the applicant’s land and out of Acs.4.20 guntas, only an extent of Acs.2.37 guntas is in occupation of the applicant. It is contended that since respondent Nos.1 to 13 grabbed his land without any entitlement by creating fictitious documents, he filed LGC before the learned Special Court against the said respondents.

9. Resisting the above contentions, respondent No.1 in LGC filed his counter-affidavit before the learned Special Court and contended therein that the applicant is not the owner of Acs.4.20 guntas of land and he got only Acs.4.00 gu