IMPORTANT POINT
The land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 2(d) and 2(e)- Land grabber and land grabbing -Definitions-Grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally-Land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement-Land belonging to respondent 3-According to appellant he had purchased the land by registered sale deed executed on behalf of respondent 3 by his General Power of Attorney holder P -Appellant started construction when an objection was raised by T who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney holder of respondent 3-Appellant filed a suit for injunction-An interim injunction granted in favour of appellant-Dispute as to whether P was holder of power of attorney of respondent 3 or that T was holder of power of attorney-Evidence on record that respondent 3 had not authorized P to execute the sale deed-No title passed on to appellant who is in possession of the property without legal entitlement-Whether appellant is land grabber within the meaning of Section 2(d) rw/s 2(e) of the Act.
       Held : From a reading of the definitions of the phrases "land grabber" and "land grabbing" it is clear that the grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements as indicated above are missing in our view, it would not be a case of land grabbing. (Para 9)
       The appellant s case is that before the sale deed was executed he had published a notice in the newspapers inviting objections against the proposed transaction on 2.9.1993. No objections had been received, it would, however, be immaterial since the material fact is that if the appellant intended to obtain possession illegally and had obtained or created a false power of attorney in favour of S. Prabhakara Rao he would have been the last person to have published any such notice. This vital and important fact, we find, has been totally missed to be taken note of, though, only a mention of it has been made in the judgment. We again find that the criticism that original power of attorney was not filed is also not justified. The appellant is not supposed to have in his possession the general power of attorney executed in favour of another person. (Para 13)
       If the appellant was responsible for creation of a false document of general power of attorney in favour of S. Prabhakara Rao with an intention to get the sale deed executed in his favour as observed earlier also, he would be the last person to invite objection through publication in the newspapers. The Special Court has not recorded any finding that no such publication was made. S. Prabhakara Rao may have been an imposter, or not a genuine person or a genuine power of attorney holder of respondent No. 3, but neither there is any such finding nor facts or circumstances on the record to impute any such knowledge to the appellant at the time of execution of sale deed in his favour. The provisions of the Act would not cover such cases, unless coupled with the fact of not being entitled for possession the person enters into possession with a view to obtain illegal possession. Where such view of taking illegal possession is missing or lacking a person would not be covered under the definition of the phrase or expression "land grabber". The facts, to indicate such intention, though have been pleaded, as indicated earlier, but no such finding has been recorded. The mere fact of legally not entitled to the possession would not fulfill the ingredients of definition of "land grabber" and "land grabbing". The High Court, we find, has only repeated briefly whatever has been discussed by the Special Court without adverting to the other facts and circumstances and the question involved as discussed above. The orders, therefore, passed by the Special Court and the High Court are not sustainable. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the Special Court are set aside and the suit filed by Respondent No. 3 through his alleged general power of attorney holder. Tirupathiah in the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act shall stand dismissed. (Paras 13 and 14)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Definition of "land grabber" includes persons who commit land grabbing, give financial aid for illegal possession, collect rent by criminal intimidation, or abet such acts (!) . - Definition of "land grabbing" involves taking land without lawful entitlement and with intent to illegally possess, create illegal tenancies, or construct unauthorized structures (!) . - Land grabbing requires absence of lawful entitlement and intent to take possession illegally (!) . - Knowledge and intent to enter into possession illegally are necessary ingredients for land grabbing (!) . - The accused must be aware that they are entering into possession without legal entitlement for it to qualify as land grabbing (!) . - Ownership disputes alone do not constitute land grabbing unless possession was taken with illegal intent (!) (!) . - Invitation of objections through newspaper notice undermines claim of intent to grab land illegally (!) . - Mere inability to lawfully enter into possession is insufficient without evidence of intent to act illegally (!) (!) . - Burden of proving elements of land grabbing lies on the allegation based on facts and circumstances on record (!) .

What is the definition of "land grabber" under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act?

What is the definition of "land grabbing" under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act?

What are the elements required to establish that a person is a "land grabber"?

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-The judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upholding the judgment and order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short the Act ) directing the appellant to handover the possession of the land to respondent No. 3 herein Dr. Guru Bhagavathula Rama Krishna Rao, has been impugned.

2. The relevant facts leading to the dispute between the parties are that according to the appellant he had purchased the land in dispute by means of a registered sale deed dated 5.2.1994 executed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by his General Power of Attorney holder S. Prabhakara Rao. He was granted permit by the appropriate authorities for construction over the land in the month of March, 1994 whereafter the appellant started construction and had already raised pillars etc. when an objection was raised by Tirupathiah who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the respondent No. 3. The case of Tirupathiah was that no one else including S. Prabhakara Rao had any right to transfer the property. However, since obstruction was being created to the construction undertaken by the appellant over the land in dispute, he filed a suit for injunction on 28.3.1994. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant. Later, however, Tirupathiah also filed a suit on 29.6.1994 for respondent No. 3 claiming possession over the land. On 29.6.1994 an order to maintain status quo was passed and ultimately by judgment and order dated 20.10.1994 both suits were decided confirming the injunction granted in favour of the appellant and dismissing the suit of respondent No. 3.

3. In respect to the question of possession, on consideration of all the evidence adduced before the Civil Court, it recorded a finding that the appellant was in possession and a case for grant of interim injunction was made out. However, in so far the question as to the title and ownership of the land was concerned it was observed that it was for the parties to approach the competent court for determination of their dispute since no other relief was prayed for except for an interim injunction. While disposing of the suit O.S.No. 3226 of 1994 filed by G. Ramakrishna Rao the Trial Court found that there was no reason to grant any status quo order as prayed for and so far the question of title is concerned it was observed that it was open to the parties to take appropriate steps and approach the competent court to determine their dispute in respect of the title.

4. After the first round of litigation, as indicated above, was over, the respondent No. 3 filed a suit being LGC No. 157 of 1994 before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act through P. Tirupathaiah, the alleged General Power of Attorney Holder. The main dispute between the parties was as to whether S. Prabhakara Rao was the General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No. 3 or it is P. Tirupathiah as claimed by the respondent. The case of the appellant has been that since he was interested in purchasing a property, on the suggestion of his brother-in-law, he entered into a deal with S. Prabhakara Rao who held out himself to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the respondent No. 3. The General Power of Attorney in favour of S. Prabhakar Rao was a registered document and the sale deed executed by S. Prabhakara Rao was also duly registered. It was denied by the appellant that Tirupathiah was the General Power of Attorney holder of Respondent No. 3.

5. The case of the respondent No. 3 in the petition filed before the Special Court was that he had purchased the plot in question from the co-operative housing society on 13.6.1977. He had constructed a room over the said plot and had kept a watchman in that room to protect the property but the appellant had forcibly occupied the property in dispute and had also demolished the room of the watchman standing thereon. The allegation in regard to the Gener

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 669

IMPORTANT POINTThe land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement.

What is the definition of "land grabber" under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act?

What is the definition of "land grabbing" under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act?

What are the elements required to establish that a person is a "land grabber"?

IMPORTANT POINT
The land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement.