Holding

The Special Court/Tribunal lacks jurisdiction where the petition fails to disclose the jurisdictional facts of land grabbing; ordinary title disputes are outside its exclusive jurisdiction.

Summary

Om Prakash Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, claimed that a 16‑acre parcel of land in Andhra Pradesh was joint family property and that the Karta, Ram Katin Singh, died in 1978. He alleged that the respondents fabricated three sale deeds in 1980‑81 by forging Singh’s signature and thereby illegally obtained possession. The respondents contended that Singh died in 1992 and that the sale deeds were valid, having exercised possession for over 22 years. Singh filed an application before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, seeking possession and cancellation of the deeds; the Special Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdictional facts, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the Special Court/Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction only when the petition discloses the factual ingredients of "land grabbing" as defined in s.2(e) of the Act; mere allegations of forged documents without a prima facie case of land grabbing fall outside its exclusive jurisdiction, which is limited to genuine land‑grabbing cases, not ordinary title disputes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The Special Court/Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, has jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the petition does not disclose the factual elements of land grabbing.
Whether the allegations of forged sale deeds constitute a case of "land grabbing" within the meaning of s.2(e) of the Act.
Whether the Special Court can decide questions of title and adverse possession in proceedings under the Act.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982s. 10, s. 15, s. 2(e), s. 7, s. 7A, s. 8
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 31

Subjects

Land grabbingSpecial Court jurisdictionAndhra Pradesh Land Grabbing ActAdverse possessionForged sale deedsTitle disputeSpecific Relief Act

Judgment

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 333

OM PRAKASH SINGH A
v.
M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 2009)
APRIL 15, 2009
B
[S.8. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)

ANDHRA PRADESH LAND GRABBING
(PROHIBIT/ON) ACT, 1982:
c
s.2(e) and 7-A - 'Land grabbing' - Jurisdiction of Special
Court/Special Tribunal - Application seeking possession of
land and alleging execution of fabricated/fraudulent sale
deeds - Held: Tribunal derives jurisdiction only when
jurisdictional facts are disclosed in the petition - It is 0
..- necessary not only to allege the act of land grabbing within
the meaning of provisions of the Act, but also a prima facie
case must be found out in order to enable the Tribunal to
issue notice as regards existence of an act of land grabbing
- Ordinary disputes with regard to title of property are not within
exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court/Tribunal - In the instant E
case, the bald a/legations of creating a forged document
made in the petition were rightly held by the Special Court and
'"' High Court not falling within the mischief of land grabbing -
a
In case of this nature when jurisdictional facts have not been
pleaded Special Court could not have exercised its F
jurisdiction - It has now been settled that Special Court has
jurisdiction to decide question of adverse possession -
However, the respondents have claimed their title through
registered sale deeds which were executed long time back
.. " and have prima facie satisfied the Special Court that they have G
lawful entitlement to the land and have possession thereof for
long - Special Court and High Court rightly rejected
appellant's application - Adverse possession.

333 H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.
.....
A The appellant, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, filed an "
application on 16.2.2002 before the Special Court
constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 stating that the land in question,
admeasuring 16 acres, 30 guntas situate in State of
B Andhra Pradesh, was a joint family property and on the
death of the Karta of the joint family, namely, 'RK', on
22.2.1978, the respondents taking advantage of the death
of 'RK' fabricated 3 fraudulent sale deeds dated 4.3.1980, ~

6.3.~980 and 17.3.1981 impersonating the said 'RK'.- The

c stand of the respondents was that 'RK', who was the
exclusive owner of the property in question, transferred
his right, title and interest in favour of respondent No.1,
who in turn transferred his right title and interest by
executing sale deeds in favour of respondents No.2 to 6.
According to respondent No.1, 'RK' died in 1992 and not
D
in 1978 as alleged by the appellant. The Special Court
dismissed the application holding that in the absence of
...
requisite pleadings, the only question as to whether 'RK'
was alive on the dates of execution of the sale deeds in
the year 1980, could not be determined as fundamental
E fact necessary fcir initiating proceedings under the Land
Grabbing Act in the absence of requisite pleadings. The
High Court having dismissed applicant's writ petition, he
filed the appeal.

F Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 provides for the powers
of the Special Tribunal. The first proviso appended
thereto empowers the Special Court to reject a case
G
brought before it without any further enquiry, if prima ~ ...
facie it appears to be frivolous or vexatious. The Act
indisputably confers a wide jurisdiction upon the Special
Tribunal and Special Court. All attributes of a civil
litigation can be gone into by the Special Court and the
H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A 1992. Such broad questions, have rightly been held to be
beyond the purview of the Special Court as the concise
statement did not disclose the foundational fact of land
grabbing. In the concise statement, it was merely stated
that the transfers effected through the manipulated and
B fabricated sale deeds were not the transfers effected by
'Rk.'; and that all the respondents had resorted to illegal,
unJawful and malafide acts of creation of documents by
forged signatures of late 'RK' and fabrication of the sale ~
deeds impersonating the dead pers'!n. Such bald
c allegations, both according to the Special Court as also
the High Court by itself would not come within the
mischief of 'land grabbing' as defined in s.2(e) of the Act.
The appellant indisputably could raise such contentions
before a civil court. Such a relief of delivery of possession
and cancellation of the deed comes within the purview
0
of s.31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. [Paras 11, 12, 13
and 14] [346-A-D, F-H; 347-A-B]

LL Sudhakar Reddy and Others v. State of A.P. and
Others (2001) 6 SCC 634; Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt.
E of A.P. and Others (2002) 3 SCC 258; Gouni Satya Reddi v.
Govt. of A.P. and Others (2004) 7 SCC 398; A.P. Housing
Board v. Mohd. Sadatul/ah and Others (2007) 6 SCC 566 and
Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. v. Manda/ Revenue Officer and
Others (2007) 11 SCC 714, referred to.
F
2. It has now been settled that the Special Court/
Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to decide the
question of adverse possession. However, in the instant
case, the respondents claimed their title by reason of
G registered deeds of sale, which were executed long time
back. They have been exercising their right of ) .,
possession over the lands in suit for 22 years. The
appellant did not disclose that he had either been in
possession of the land or was dispossessed. He has not
H
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 337
.. )f
been able to show any act of possession on his part or A
on the part of his predecessor-in-interest after 1978. On
· the other hand, the respondents have prima facie
satisfied the Special Court that they have lawful
entitlement to the land in question and have possession
thereof since 1~80.ln a case of this nature, where B
jurisdictional facts have not been pleaded, the Special
Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction. [Para 17
-- -... and 22-24] [348-F-G; 351-F-H; 352-A, C-E]

V. Laxminarasamma v. A. Yadaiah (Dead) & Ors. 2009
(3) SCALE 685, relied on.
c
N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Others (2006) 4 SCC 214,
stand overruled.
D
Case Law Reference:
(2001) 6 sec 634 referred to Para 15
(2002) 3 sec 258 referred to . Para 16
(2004) 1 sec 398 referred to Para 18 E
....
(2006) 4 sec 214 stands overruled Para 19
(2007) 6 sec 566 referred to Para 20
(2001) 11 sec 114 referred to Para 21 F
2009 (3) SCALE 685 relied on Para 22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2564 of 2009.
G
~ .. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.2.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Petition No.141 O of 2004.

C. Hanumanth Rao and Bina Madhavan (for Lawyer's Knit
& Co.) for the Appellant. H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A P.S. Narasimha and L. Roshmani (for Somiran Sharma)
for the Respondents.

The Jud!~ment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. Application of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") is
involved in this appeal.

3. It arises out of the following factual matrix.
c
One Ram Katin Singh was the owner of a land measuring
16 acres, 30 guntas situate in Feerzadiguda Village, Ranga
Reddy District in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

o Appellant claims that it was a joint family property. There
exists a dispute as regards date of death of Ram Katin Singh. ....,_
Whereas, according to the appellant, he died issueless on
22.02.1978, the respondents contend that he expired in 1992.

4. Appellant indisputably is a resident of Uttar Pradesh.
E The suit land is fallow. Respondents allegedly taking advantage
of the death of Ram Katin Singh fabricated three fraudulent sale
deeds dated 4.03.1980, 6.03.1980 and 17.03.1981
impersonating the said Ram Katin Singh. Respondents
contend that Ram Katin Singh was the exclusive owner of the
F property and transferred his right, title and interest in favour of
the respondent No. 1 herein by reason of the aforementioned
deeds of sale. Respondent No. 1, in turn, transferred his right,
title and interest by executing deeds of sale in favour of several
persons. Respondents denied and disputed that the
G transactions entered into by and between Ram Katin Singh and
the respondent No. 1, on the one hand, and the latter and the
respondent Nos. 2 to 6, on the other, were bogus, sham or
illegal transactions as alleged or at all.

H 5. Appellant filed an application before the Special Court
• OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS . 339
..__ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
)I
constituted under the Act on or about 16.022002. It was A
marked as L.G.C. SR No. 442 of 2002. The Special Court by
reason of an order dated 4.11.2003 dismissed the said
application opining that the only question as to whether Ram
Katin Singh was alive on the date of execution of the said deeds
of sale in the year 1980, by itself, cannot be determined as B
foundational fact necessary for initiating a proceeding before
it in absence of requisite pleadings.
-4
~ 6. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the
appellant' filed a writ application before the High Court of
Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, which by reason of the impugned
c
judgment dated 13.12.2007 has been dismissed.

7. Mr. G. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel appearing on
beh.alf of the appellant would contend:
D
..,,..._ (i) The Special Court and consequently the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as they failed to take into
consideration that the Special Court had the
jurisdiction to go into the question of title by and
E
between the parties.

(ii) Appellant having pleaded the factum of land
grabbing in the concise statement annexed to the
application, it was obligatory on the part of .the
Special Court to determine the said issue. F

8. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would support
the impugned judgment.

- ~
9. Before adverting to the core question, we may notice G
some salient features of the Act.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh noticed organized
attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating
individually and in groups, to grab either by force or by deceit H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A or otherwise, lands (whether belonging to the Government, a
~
..
local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment,
including a wakf, or any other private persons) as also the fact
that the land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing
societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large
B scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of lands through
unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of
certain se.ctions of the people resulting in large accumulation
of unaccounted wealth and as thereby public order was also ._-
adversely affected now and .then by such unlawful activities of
c land grabbers in the State in respect of urban and urbanisable
land.

The Act was enacted with a view to prohibiting the
activities of land grabbing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and
to provide for matters connected therewith. The Act is a
D Special Act. It is a self-contained Code.
.......
'Land Grabber' is defined in section 2(d) of the Act to
mean a person or a group of persons who commits land
grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to
E any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for
construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects
or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands, rent,
compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation; or
who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and
F also includes the successors in interest.

'Land grabbing' has been defined in Section 2(e) to mean:

"every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging
to the Government, a local authority, a religious or
G charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or
any 0ther private person) by a person or group of persons, > ~
without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally
taking possession of such lands or enter into or create
illegal tenancies er lease and licence agreements or any
H other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 341
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
-· ~· construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, A
or give such land to any person on rental or lease and
licence basis for construction, or use and occupation of
unauthorized structures; and the term 'to grab land' shall
be construed accordingly."
B
Section 3 declares 'land grabbing' in any form to be .
unlawful and any activity connected therewith to be an offence

- ..... punishable under the Act. Section 4 imposes prohibition on land
grabbing, violation whereof results in penal action(s} as
s·pecified therein. Section 7 provides for constitution of Special
Courts. The Chairman of the Special Court is a sitting or retired
c
Judge of the High Court and out of other four members thereof,
two ought to be sitting or retired District Judges (Judicial
members) and the other two who hold or have held a post not
I below the rank of a District Collector. The process for-
'
appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Judicial D
~ Members of the special court has been laid down in the Act.

The Special Court has been empowered to make
regulations relating to the procedures to be followed for the
conduct of cases as also the manner of taking decisions. Sub- E
section (SD) of Section 7 reads as under :
I

"5(D)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, the Special Court may follow its
..i, own procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the
principles of natural justice and fair play and subject to the
F
other provisions of this Act and of any rules made
thereunder while deciding the Civil liability.

(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 260 or
Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, G
- ..i every offence punishable under this Act shall be tried in a
summary way and the provisions of Sections 263 to 265
(both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be
apply to such trial.
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

,.
~

~
A (iii) When a person is convicted of an offence of land
grabbing attended by criminal force or show of force or by
criminal intimidation, and it appears to the Special Court ·
that, by such force or show of force or intimidation the land
of any person has been grabbed, the Special Court may
B if it thinks fit, order that possession of the same be
restored to that person after evicting by force, if necessary,
any other person who may be in possession of the
property." .... -
Section 7A of the Act provides for the powers of the
c Special Tribunal, sub-section (1) whereof reads as under:
"7-A. "Special Tribunals and its powers etc:-(1) Every
Special Tribunal shall have power to try all cases not taken
cognizance of by the Special court relating to any alleged
D act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and
title to, or lawful possession of the land grabbed whether ~

before or after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh
Land Grabbing (Prohibition)(Amendment) Act, 1987 and
brought before it and pass such orders (including orders
E by way of interim directions) as it deems fit.

Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Tribunal, any
case brought before it is prima facie frivolous or vexatious,
it shall reject the same without any further enquiry;

F Provided further that if in the opinion of the Special Tribunal
any case brought before it is a fit case to be tried by the
Special court it may for reasons to be recorded by it
transfer the case to the Special Court for its decision in
the matter."
G
The first proviso appended thereto empowers the Special ,i. ....
Court to reject a case brought before it without any further
enquiry, if prima facie appears to be frivolous or vexatious.
Special Court may also for reasons to be re.corded by it
transfer a case to the special court for its decision in the matter.
H
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 343
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
A special court ordinarily is required to follow the procedures A
prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal is
maintainable from a judgment or order to the special court.
Sub-section (4) of Section 7A makes a finding of the special
tribunal with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing to be
conclusive of the said fact as also the persons who committed B
,.- the act of land grabbing conclusive.

Section 8 provides for the procedure and power of the
special courts, the relevant portions whereof read as under :

"8. Procedure and Powers of the Special Court:-(1) The C
Special Court may, either suo motu, or on application made
by any person, officer or authority, take cognizance of and
try every case arising out of any alleged act of land
grabbing, or with respect to the ownership and title to, or
lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or D
after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders ·
(including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems
fit.

xxx xxx xxx E
(28) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for the Special Court
to try all offences punishable under this Act. (Central Act
2of1974).
F
{6) Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any
alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of
the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed
such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special
Court with regard to the determination of title and G
ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed
shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land.

Provided that the Special Court shall by notification specify
the fact of taking cognizance of the case under this Act.
Such notification shall state that any objection which may H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A be received by the Special Court from any person ~
•
including the custodian of evacuee property within the
period specified therein will be considered by it.

Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee
property objects to the Special court taking cognizance of
B
the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further with
,'
the case in regard to such property;

Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice +-
of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on
c any person known or believed to be interested in the land,
after a summary enquiry to satisfy itself about the persons
likely to be interested in the land.

(7) It shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass such
D order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It
may award compensation in terms of money for wrongful
possession of the land grabbed which shall not be less
than an amount equivalent to the market value of the land
-<!- .
grabbed as on the date of the order and profits accrued
from the land, payable by the land grabber to the owner of
E
the grabbed land and may direct re-delivery of the grabbed
land to its rightful owner. The amount of compensation and
profits, so awarded and costs of re-delivery, if any, shall
be recovered as an arrear of land revenue in case the

F
Government is the owner, or as a decree of a Civil Court, ...
in any other case to be executed by the Special Court.

Provided that the Special Court shall, before passing an
order under this sub-section, give to the land grabber an
opportunity of making his representation or of adducing
G evidence, if any, in this regard and consider such
representation and evidence. ... ....
(8) Any case, pending before any court or other authority
immediately before the constitution of a Special Court, as
would have been within the jurisdiction of such Special
H
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 345
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
,..
")
Court, shall stand transferred to the Special court as if the A
cause of action on which such suit or proceeding is based
had arisen after the constitution of the special court."

Section 10 of the Act provides for the burden of proof.
Section 15 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause stating B
that the provisions thereof shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for
the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or
----
. ... decree or order of a court of any other tribunal or authority .

10. The Act indisputably confers a wide jurisdiction upon c
the Special Tribunal and Special Court. All attributes of a civil
litigation can be gone into by the Special Court and the
Tribunal. The Tribunal is not only a court but by reason of a legal
fiction created is deemed to be a civil court. It contains a non-
obstante clause, by reason whereof the provisions of the Act D
-'I--
would prevail over the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as also
the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972.

The Tribunal, however, derives jurisdiction only when
jurisdictional facts are disclosed in the petition. For invoking the E
jurisdiction of the said court, it is necessary not only to allege
the act of land grabbing within the meaning of the _provisions
of the Act but also a prima facie case must be found out to the
Special Court and/or the Tribunal in order to enable it to issue
notices upon satisfying itself as regards existence of an act of
F
land grabbing. When it takes a suo mdtu action, it has to hear
the alleged land grabbers also. The statute. therefore, provides
for sufficient safeguards. Ordinary disputes with regard to a title
of property are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special
Court or the Tribunal. They have to be determined in ordinary
civil courts. The Special Courts and the Tribunals are not G
,,,. ·~
substitutes for the civil courts in the litigations involving a civil
dispute relating to immovable property within the meaning of
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has the exclusive
jurisdiction where land grabbing is alleged or appeared from
the application filed before it. H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~
l(
A 11. The principal disputes which are required to be
determined by the Special Court, in view of the statements
made by the appellant before it, were:

(i) Whether the property in question was a joint family
property or a self-acquired one and in case it was
B
found to be joint family property, whether Ram Katin
Singh was the Karta thereof.

(ii) Whether Ram Katin Singh died in 1978 or in 1992.
'+ -.,. .
c 12. Such broad questions, in our opinion, have rightly been
held to be beyond the purview of the Special Court as the
concise statement did not disclose the foundational fact of land
grabbing. In the concise statement, it was merely stated:

"12. It is submitted that the applicant informed that the said
D transfers through so called manipulated, created and
-<f~
fabricated sale deeds in favour of M. Linamaiah and M.
Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy are not the transfers effected by late
Ram Katin Singh, the brother of the applicant, after 2 years
of his death, which documents are illegal, unlawful and void
E documents and that such documents do not convey or
transfer any of the applicant's rights in respect of the
application schedule land. which were mentioned in the
said documents, which document are illegal and unlawful
transfers either on facts or in law."
F
13. Our attention has also been drawn to the paragraph
15 of the said concise statement, which reads as under:

"15. It is submitted that all the respondents had resorted
to illegal, unlawful and malafide acts of creation of
G documents on the client's land by resorting to forgery of •. '>.

the signatures of late Ram Katin Singh and fabrication of
the sale deeds impersonating the dead person late Ram
Katin Singh."

H 14. Such bald allegations, both according to the Special
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 347
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
.,
Court as also the High Court creating a forged document by A
itself would not come within the mischief of 'Land Grabbing'.
Appellant indisputably could raise such contentions before a
civil court. Such a relief of delivery of and cancellation of the
deed comes within the purview of Section 31 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. 8
15. Mr. Hanumanth Rao has placed strong reliance on
:-- + paragraph 7 of the decision of this Court in LL Sudhakar
Reddy and Others v. State of A.P. and Others ((2001) 6 SCC
634], which reads, thus:
c
'7. In the view we have taken, we do not propose to express
any opinion on merits of the case. Suffice it to observe that
having made the observation that the appellants could
have availed the remedies of review under Section 17-A
of the Act and the suit for declaration of title and right, in D
_,._ our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case because
after the High Court has put its seal of approval on the
judgment and order of the Special Court, the result of the
review application and the suit would become a foregone E
conclusion. Further in regard to the remedy of the suit,
having regard to the provisions of sub-section (2) of
Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Act, no suit for title
in respect of the disputed land which is alleged to be a
land grabbed by the first appellant, could be entertained F
by the civil court. It may be apt to point out that under sub-
section (8) of Section 8, any case pending before any
court or other authority immediately before the constitution
of a Special Court, as would have been within the
jurisdiction of such Special Court, stood transferred to the
.;. .. Special Court as if the causes of action on which the suit
G

or proceeding is based had arisen after the constitution
of the Special Court. In other words the suit for declaration
of title by the appellants would not be maintainable. For
the above reasons, the order of the Division Bench under
H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

.•
A challenge confirming the order of the Single Judge is set
aside, the writ petition is restored to the file of the High
Court and the case is remitted to the High Court for
deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law."

The said decision, itself, suggests that the lands must be
B
found to have been grabbed before proceeding under the Act
could be initiated.
'f -
16. Reliance has also been placed on Konda Lakshmana
Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 258] wherein
c this Court opined:

"45. In regard to the ingredients of the expression "land
grabber", it is necessary to point out that it is only when a
person has lawful entitlement to the land alleged to be
D grabbed that he cannot be brought within the mischief of
the said expression. A mere prima facie bona fide claim -<I-

to the land alleged to be grabbed by such a person, cannot
avert being roped in within the ambit of the expression
"land grabber". What is germane is lawful entitlement to and
not a mere prima facie bona fide claim to the land alleged
E
to be grabbed. Therefore, the observation of the Division
Bench of the High Court in the said Writ Appeal No. 61 of
1978 that the appellant can be taken to have prima facie
bona fide claim to the land in dispute which was relevant
for the said Land Encroachment Act, cannot be called in
F aid as a substitute for lawful entitlement to the land alleged
to be grabbed, which alone is relevant under the Act."

17. Respondents herein have prim a facie satisfied the
Special Court that they have lawful entitlement to the land in
G question and have possession thereof sirice 1980.

18. In Gouni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P. and Others
. "'
[(2004) 7 sec 398], it was held:

"10. From a reading of the definitions of the phrases "land
grabber" and "land grabbing" it is clear that the grabbing
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 349
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with A
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 indic;ated above are
missing in our view, it would not be a case of land B
grabbing."

Upon considering the facts, it was furthermore opined:

" ... The Special Court has not recorded any finding that no
such publication was made. S. Prabhakara Rao may have C
been an impostor, or not a genuine person or a genuine
power-of-attorney holder of Respondent 3, but neither is
there 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 D
provisions of the Act would not cover such cases, unless
coupled with the fact of not being entitled to 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 E
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 fulfil the ingredients F
of the definitions of "land grabber'' and "land grabbing" ... "

19. We may, however, notice that in N. Srinivasa Rao v.
Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act
. and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 214], a Two-Judge Bench of this
Court opined that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to G
decide question as regards acquisition of title by adverse
possession in a proceeding under the Act as the same would
'fall within the domain of the civil court.

20. In A.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Sadatullah and H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
).
t
A Others [(2007) 6 SCC 566], another Two-Judge Bench :,.j

although noticed the difference of opinion in the decisions of
this Court in N. Srinivasa Rao (supra) and Kanda Lakshmana
Bapuji (supra) in the light of factual matrix involved therein,
directed that the dispute between the parties be determined
B by a civil court.
21. We may furthermore notice that the question in regard
to the jurisdiction of the land grabbing court has been
considered at some length in Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. v. Manda/
".__
Revenue Officer and Others [(2007) 11 SCC 714] wherein
c inter a/ia it was stated:

"40. The Tribunal being possessed of extensive jurisdiction,
subject of course to fulfilment of the conditions precedent,
for initiation of the proceeding, was entitled to go into all
D issues. We have furthermore to bear in mind that the
definition of "land grabber" is not only restricted to the party
to the proceeding, but also includes his predecessor-in-
interest. Once the land is held to be a government land,
the logical corollary thereto would be that subject to the law
E of limitation and prescription, the State would not lose the
said right to the opposite party.

41. It may be true that absence of lawful entitlement by itself
may not be sufficient to pass a judgment and decree in
favour of the State and against the land grabber, but also
F it must be shown that he had taken illegal possession
thereof."

It was furthermore opined:

G "44. We would like to add that the person's purported belief
that he is legally entitled to hold the land and his
possession is not otherwise illegal must also be judged
not only from the point of time when he entered into the
possession or when he had acquired the purported title but
also from the point of view as to whether by reason of
H
OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. 351
...... r [S.B. SINHA, J.]

determination of such a question by a competent court of A
law, he has been found to have no title and consequently
continuance of his possession becomes illegal. If the
proceedee against whom a proceeding has been initiated
under the provisions of the said Act is entitled to raise the
question of adverse possession, which being based on B
knowledge of a lawful title and declaration of the hostile
\
title on the part of the person in possession, there does
~: -t
not appear to be any reason as to why knowledge of defect
in h!s title and consequently his possession becoming
unlawful to his own knowledge would not come within the c
purview of the term "land grabbing" as contained in Section
2(e) of the Act. The provisions of the Act must be
construed so as to enable the tribunal to give effect thereto.
It cannot be construed in a pedantic manner which if taken
to its logical corollary would make the provisions wholly
D
unworkable. Only because a person has entered into
possession of a land on the basis of a purported registered
sale deed, the same by itself, in our considered opinion,
would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that he
had not entered over the land unauthorisedly, unfairly, or
greedily." E

22. The question has now been settled by a Three-Judge
Bench of this Court in V. Laxminarasamma v. A. Yadaiah
(Dead) & Ors. [2009 (3) SCALE 685] wherein it has
categorically been held that the Special Court/ Tribunal has the F
requisite jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse
possession.

This case, as indicated hereinbefore, stands on a different
footing.
..; -~
G
23. Mr. Hanumanth Rao would submit that whereas under
the Act the burden of proof would be on the land grabber, in
the civil court, it would be on the plaintiff. It may be so, but, in a
case of this nature, where jurisdictional facts have not been
1 pleaded, the Special Court could not have exercised its H
'
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A jurisdiction.

Furthermore, in K. Sharada Bai (Smt) and Another v.
Shamshunnisa (Smt) and Others [(2008) 3 SCC 49], this Court
upon noticing the definitions of "land grabbing" as also "land
grabber" held as under:
8
"... In view of the above statutory provisions and of the
claim of the applicant that she is the original owner of the
schedule property and her land was grabbed by the
appellants, the initial 13urden is on her to prove her right
c and title to the property and if the same is discharged, the
burden shifts on the respondents."

24. It is not a case where the respondents claimed their
title by reason of a registered deed of sale, which was executed
0 long time back. They have been exercising their right of
possession over the lands in suit for 22 years. Appellant did -'<-
not disclose that he had either been in possession of the land
or he has been dispossessed. He had not been able to show
any act of possession on his part or on the part of the
E predecessor-in-interest after 1978. An application at his
instance was maintainable provided he proved himself to be
lawfully entitled to be restored back possession by establishing
the fact that the land has been grabbed.

25. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
F this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.