Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, C.V.RAMULU, K.C.BHANU
Mohd.Siddiq Ali Khan - Appellant
Versus
Shahsun Finance Limited, Chennai - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-05
Held : There need not be any specific provision in the statute suggesting or guiding as to how the Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction for the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure is made applicable to the proceedings under the Act and under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, no court can take cognizance of a case, unless the material facts pleaded disclose a cause of action.
It is not in dispute that Section 9 of the act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court and for the purposes of the provisions of the said enactments, the special Court shall be deemed to be a Civil court, or, as the case may be, a Court of session, and shall have all the powers of the civil and Court of Session. It is clear, the special Court is entitled to exercise the power under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and reject the application, if the allegations made therein do not disclose cause of action and the case is frivolous and vexatious one.
That an application, filed under section 8 of the Act, which does not disclose cause of action would be a frivolous petition and liable to be rejected without any further enquiry.
Unless the allegations made in the application satisfy and attract the ingredients of "land grabber" and "land grabbing" as provided for under Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act, mere repetition of words "land grabbing" would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless that statement or allegations satisfies both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention.
The facts pleaded in the concise statement, at the most, may reveal the bona fide dispute of tile and possession; claims and counter claims in respect of the schedule property. Such bona fide disputes can never be equated to that of an act of land grabbing. The individuals involved in raising such bona fide disputes can never be characterized as "land grabbers".
The averments made in the concise statement and the documents annexed thereto do not disclose any act of "land grabbing". There is not even an allegation that the writ petitioners have greedily, unauthorisedly, unfairly either forcibly or violently or unscrupulously taken the possession of the land without any lawful entitlement.
The mere repetition of expression "land grabber" and "land grabbing" by themselves would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless the averments and the allegations made in the concise statement attract the ingredients of "land grabber" or "land grabbing",
The allegations made in the application, which do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 2 (d) and 2 (e) of the act, do not warrant taking cognizance of the case and all such applications shall be deemed to be frivolous in their nature which are bound to be rejected by the Special court without taking cognizance under the provisions of the Act.
The allegations and the averments made in the concise statement as well as the documents annexed to the application in the L. G. C. , if read, accepting those allegations as true, no case of land grabbing is made out for granting relief and no cause of action is shown.
( 1 ) THE order passed by the Special Court under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act, 1982 (for short the Act ) taking cognizance of the case filed by the 1st respondent against the writ petitioners is impugned in this batch of writ petitions.
( 2 ) THAT in order to consider as to whether the Special Court committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the case under section 8 (1) of the Act, a few relevant facts leading to filing of this batch of writ petitions are required to be noticed.
( 3 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed land- grabbing case (for short l. G. C. ) in the special Court against the writ petitioners and other with a prayer to; (A) declare the respondents 1 to 21 (in the L. G. C.) as land grabbers of application schedule property i. e. , all that piece of land in Survey nos. 10 and 11 (T. S. No. 3) bearing municipal No. 8-3-323, with sub and oblique numbers 8-3-323/1, 8-3-323/1/a, 8-3-323/2 to 12, 8-3-323/b, C, D and D1, situated in Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, hyderabad, Admeasuring 4,856 square yards out of the total extent of 5,811 square yards, (B) declare the applicant (in the L. G. C.) as lawful owner of the application schedule property, (C) direct the 1st respondent (in the l. G. C.) to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the application schedule land to the applicant (in the L. G. C.), (D) punish respondents 1 to 21 (in the l. G. C.) under the provisions of the a. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act, for the offence of land-grabbing, (E) award compensation of Rs. 1. 00 crore keeping the market value of the application schedule land in view, by directing the respondents 1 to 21 (in the L. G. C.) to pay the same to the applicant (in the L. G. C.) for grabbing the application schedule property.
( 4 ) IN the L. G. C. , it is, inter alia, alleged that the applicant (1st respondent in this batch of writ petitions) is the lawful owner of the piece of land with buildings in Survey nos. 10 and 11 (T. S. No. 3) bearing Municipal no. 8-3-323, with sub and oblique numbers 8-3-323/1, 8-3-323/1/a, 8-3-323/2 to 12, 8-3-323/b, C, D and D1, situated at yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, admeasuring 4,856 square yards out of the total extent of 5,811 square yards, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed, dated 11-8-1995, from its lawful owner Smt. Ameernnisa Begum and her children for a valuable consideration and on the date of execution of the sale deed, the applicant was put in physical possession of the application schedule property, which continued to be in possession of the applicant (in the L. G. C.) till it was grabbed by the 1st respondent (in the L. G. C. ). It is asserted that the vendor of the applicant became owner of the said property and adjoining property having inherited the same from her mother and sister.
( 5 ) THAT according to the averments made in the L. G. C. , one Nawab Mohd. Farooq Ali khan became the owner of the property bearing old Municipal No. 186/1 to 50 (New municipal Nos. 8-3-322 and 323, 8-3-323/1 to 21 and its sub and oblique numbers) Old survey No. 88 and 89 (New Survey Nos. 10 and 11) containing main buildings, out house, garages, stables, mulgies with appurtenant land admeasuring 21,286 square yards situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed in the year 1355 Fasli (1946 (A. D. ). Nawab Mohd. Farooq Ali khan, in turn, sold away the said property to his wife Smt. Aktherunnisa Begum through a registered sale deed, dated 2-7-1947. Nawab Mohd. Farooq Ali Khan had two wives viz. , (1) Smt. Aktherunnisa Begum, and (2) Smt. Aquila Begum. Nawab Mohd. Farooq Ali Khan died on 30-10-1957. Late nawab had four sons through his first wife, smt. Aktherunnisa Begum viz. , (1) Mohd. Jaffer Ali Khan (died on 21-4-1959), (2) Mohd. Mahabood Hyder Khan (died) on 27-10-1981 (, (3) Mohd. Razak Ali Khan (died on 14-5-1969), and (4) Mohd. Afzal Ali Khan (died in 1970) and two daughters viz. , (1
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
