IMPORTANT POINT
When an occupant of the land is alleged to be a land grabber , he has to justify his possession and prove his source of title and where source of title by an occupant is produced, the Special Court is required to examine it to consider their claim.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 2(d) and 2(e)-Constitution of India-Article 226-Land grabber-Respondents claim of title on basis of muntakhab granted to predecessor-in title of respondents-Special Court declared occupants as land grabbers holding that Muntakhab contained in the file is not reliable and supported by any corresponding revenue entries in favour of occupants-Writ petition-Scope of jurisdiction of High Court-Whether High Court was justified in holding that occupants of land cannot be termed as land grabbers under the provisions of Act of 1982-(Yes)-High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction in upsetting judgment of Special Court.
       Held : On examination of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1982 and in the light of its objects and reasons, it is apparent that in cases of alleged land grabbing, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Special Court. Jurisdiction of civil court on such subject matter stands ousted. The Special Court has been conferred powers of civil court to examine all questions of title and possession with respect to the land alleged to have been grabbed. The findings of the Special Court are binding and conclusive on the parties and all others having interest in the land which is alleged to have been grabbed. Against the decision of the Special Court, no appeal is provided. Only remedy of aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. (Para 27)
       The Special Court declared the occupants as land grabbers holding that the Muntakhab contained in the file (Ex. C-4) is not reliable and supported by any corresponding revenue entries in favour of the occupants. The High Court, which alone could have examined the correctness of the decision of the Special Court, in the absence of any remedy of appeal, rightly observed that it was within its power to re-examine the evidence to ascertain the correctness of the findings of the Special Court. In doing so, the High Court found that the documents of title Muntakhab (Ex. B-9) contained seal of the Ex Ruler. The boundaries and plan were appended to it. It found that the Special Court wrongly held that since the Muntakhab did not earmark area of grant in the survey no. 9, the grant was insufficient to prove title to the land in actual occupation of the respondents. The High Court also found that order of the Board of Revenue directing mutation in favour of the occupants remained unchallenged and was not implemented despite directions of the High Court in the earlier writ petition. The High Court also found that the rejection of the title of the occupants on the ground that there were no mutation entries made pursuant to the muntakhab was an error caused by overlooking important revenue entries in favour of the occupants which are contained in pahani patrikas (Exs. A-2 to A-13 and A-2 to A-28) for the period from 1962-63 to 1986-87. We have extracted above the findings of the Special Court and the contrary findings recorded by the High Court to show that the High Court interferred with the judgment of the Special Court not merely because it found its reasoning or conclusions erroneous but it found that important evidence corroborating the grant i.e. muntakhab (Ex. B-9) contained in the file (Ex. C-4), which was summoned from the office of the Erstwhile Ruler, was not properly scrutinised by the Special Court and important revenue records available were disregarded. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the common judgment dated 18.9.1996 passed by the High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 10074 of 1992 and batch of writ appeals whereby the judgment dated 30.7.1992 of the Special Court, Hyderabad under the Andhra Pradesh Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 [for short the Act of 1982 ] has been reversed with declaration that the respondents are not land grabbers within the meaning of definition clause contained in Section 2(d) of the Act of 1982.

2. The principle submission made before us by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh is that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction had no justification, as in appeal, to re-appreciate the whole evidence led by the parties before the Special Court and record contrary conclusions. Reliance is placed on Swarn Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1976 SC 232] and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. [2003(5) SCC 226, paras 14 and 15 at pages 237-238].

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the Special Court, established under the Act of 1982, overlooked vital documents of title produced by the occupants of the disputed land and gave undue importance to the fact that in revenue papers, the names of the occupants are not recorded as being in lawful possession of the lands in question. The submission made is that where a Special Court exercising exclusive jurisdiction conferred on it to determine whether the occupant of a land is a land grabber or not, ignores vital piece of evidence and takes decision by giving importance to unimportant facts and circumstances, the power of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 is wide enough to correct such gross errors of the Special Court. Reliance is placed on Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. [2003(6) SCC 675].

4. According to the case of the State, total land in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar Village in Rangareddy District of Andhra Pradesh measures Acres 540.32 guntas. Out of the said area, acres 295.18 guntas were set apart in favour of the ex ruler of erstwhile Nizam State as Sarfekhas lands [personal property of the Nizam]. The balance of acres 245.14 guntas, according to the State, was entered in revenue records as Kancha lands.

5. On the other side, the case of the occupants of the land is that the erstwhile ruler in the Nizam State had granted as Muntakhab or Inam , sixty acres of land out of the above Survey No. 9 to his Horseman - Syed Khasim Silhedar. After the death of Syed Khasim, his son Gulam Ahmed sold 45 acres of land to respondent-P.V. Hanumantha Rao. The remaining 15 acres of land is claimed to be in possession of heirs of Gulam Ahmed who are respondents to these appeals and were parties before the High Court. A petition for grant of occupancy rights under Inams Abolition Act was filed before the revenue Divisional Officer which was allowed in favour of Gulam Ahmed. The Collector, in appeal, Reversed that order. In Writ Petition Nos. 2449/1988 & 7520/1988 filed against the said order, the High Court in its order dated 31.12.1991 did not go into the merits of the contentions of the parties because by that time the State of A.P. had filed a suit for declaration of the land in dispute as the government land and on constitution of Special Court under the Act of 1982, the suit was transferred for trial to Special Court in accordance with Section 8(8) of the Act of 1982.

6. The occupants of the land continued to assert their rights and approached the Board of Revenue for mutation of their names on sixty acres of land in Survey No. 9 which they claimed to be in their actual possession. In the review petition filed by the occupants of the land the Board examined the documents of title produced by the occupants and by order dated 6.8.1974 [Ex.A-15] came to the conclusion that sixty acres of land from Survey No. 9 in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1015

IMPORTANT POINTWhen an occupant of the land is alleged to be a land grabber , he has to justify his possession and prove his source of title and where source of title by an occupant is produced, the Special Court is required to examine it to consider their claim.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
When an occupant of the land is alleged to be a land grabber , he has to justify his possession and prove his source of title and where source of title by an occupant is produced, the Special Court is required to examine it to consider their claim.