SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR.versusSMT. SHAMSHUNNISA AND ORS.

                        [2008] 1S.C.R.1197


A               SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR.
                                 v.
                SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA AND ORS.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 1526-1527 of 2005)
                       JANUARY 24, 2008
B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

        Land laws:
        Land grabbing - Burden to prove right and title over the
C property as owner- Held: Is on the person claiming it- If same
  is discharged, burden shifts to person in possession - A.P
  Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982- s.8(1).
      The schedule land formed part of Sy.No.30, total
D extent of which was Ac.3.19 guntas. Out of the said land,
  one 'R' owned an extent of Ac.1.29 guntas of land and
  one 'K' owned an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas. 'R' sold an
  extent of Ac.1.00 to applicant-respondent no.1. 'K' sold
  an extent of 30 guntas to appellant no.1 and Ac.1.00 to
E appellant no.2.
       The contesting respondent filed a suit before the
  Munsif Magistrate for a perpetual injunction restraining
  appellants from interfering with the exclusive possession
  and enjoyment of her 1 acre land. The said suit was
F transferred to the Special Court constituted under the A.P.
  Land Grabbing (Prohibitior.) Act, 1982 and was tried along
  with the case which was filed by respondent no.1 on the
  ground that the appellants grabbed 12-1/2 guntas of land
  out of her 1 acre land. The contesting respondent filed an
G application under s.8(1) of the Act to declare the appellants
  as land grabbers and evict them from the extent of 15
  guntas of land forming part of Sy No.30. During the
  pendency of tha application, Commissioner was
  appointed to inspect and measure the disputed land, who
H                              1197
             SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. v.               1198
               SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA & ORS.
    submitted his report. The Special Court allowed both the A
    cases holding the appellants as land grabbers and
    directing them to deliver vacant possession of 12.5 guntas
    of land to respondent no.1. Appellants filed writ petitions
    which were dismissed. Hence these appeals.
         Dismissing the appeals, the Court                        8

          HELO: 1. In view of the claim of the applicant-
    respondent that she is the original owner of the schedule
    property and her land was grabbed by the appellants, the
    initial burden is on her to prove her right and title to the  c
    property and if the same is discharged, the burden shifts
    on the respondents. It is not in dispute that the land was
    purchased by the applicant and appellants Nos. 1 and 2
    forming part of Sy. No. 30. It is also not disputed that Sy.
    No. 30 was not sub-divided. It is the claim of the applicant D
    that she purchased the property from 'R' and 'SK', which
    Is part of Sy. No.30. Before the Special Court, the applicant
    very much relied on the report of the Mandal Revenue
    Officer. On the direction of the Court, a Commissioner was
    appointed, who after inspection submitted a report. Based
    on the oral and documentary evidence coupled with the E
    report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as· the
    Commissioner, the Special Court found that the applicant
    is in possession of 27-1/2 guntas of land and the 12-1/2
    guntas of land forming part of Sy. No. 30 which is claimed
    by the applicant is adjoining to the said land. The Special r
                                                                  ..
    Court disbelieved the claim of the appellants that there is
    a boundary wall in between those lands I.e., 27-1/2 guntas
    of land and 12-1/2 guntas of land and rightly rej~cted their
    stand .• [Para 6] [1202-C, 0, E, F, G]
                                                                  G
•         2. The conclusion of special court is based on the
    appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the
    applicant and the respondents as well revenue records
    and the report of the Commissioner, the said conclusion
    cannot be faulted with. The High Court, after analyzing all H
    1199       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A the materials and finding that the appellants are land
    grabbers and grabbed 12-1/2 guntas of land, concurred
    with the decision arrived at by the Special Cou.rt and
    dismissed their writ petitions. [Para 7) [1203-G; 12t>4-A]
B       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    1526-1527 Of 2005.

         From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.6.2002 of
    the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
    W. P. Nos. 29675 and 29712/1997.

C         Roy Abraham, Seema Jain, Vimlesh Kumar and Himinder
    Lal for the Appellants.

        K. Amreswari, V.S. Raju and Debasis Misra for the
    Respondents.
D          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) These appeals are directed
  against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2002 passed
  by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
  in Writ Petition Nos. 29675 & 29712 of 1997 in and by which
E the High Court dismissed these writ petitions filed by the
  appellants herein.
           2) BRIEF FACTS:

        The schedule land forms part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar
F Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ar.d the
  total extent of which is Ac. 3.19 guntas. Out of the said extent,
  one Chakali Ramaiah owned an extent of Ac. 1.29 guntas of
  land and one Katika Baloji owned an extent of Ac.1.30 gu:itas.
  Out of total extent of Ac.1.29 guntas, Chakali Ramaiah sold an
G extent of Ac.1.00 to Smt. Sha1.1shunnisa Begum, contesting ·
  respondent No.1 herein and 20 guntas to one Jahangir and
  retained the balance of 9 gunt2s. Katika Baloji sold an extent of
  30 guntas to Smt. K. Sharada Bai, appellant No.1 herein and 1
  acre to H. Padmini Bhai, appellant No.2 herein. The contesting
H respondent filed O.S. No. 87 of 1988 on the file of the Munsif
         SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. v.                      1200
   SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA & ORS ..[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

  Magistrate, West & South, R.R. Dist. for a perpetual injunction      A
  restraining appellants herein and others acting on their behalf
. from interfering with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of
  her 1 acre land. By order dated 14.07.1995, the said suit was
  transferred to the Special Court constituted under the A. P. Land
  Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (hereinafter.referred to as 'the   B
  Act') and numbered as L.G.C. No. 133of1995. On its transfer,
  it was tried along with L.G.C. No. 162 of 1994 which was filed
  by respondent No.1 herein alleging that the appellants grabbed
  12.5 guntas of land out of her 1 acre land. During the pendency
  of the application, the Special Court appointed an Advocate-         c
  Commissioner to inspect and measure the disputed land and
  the Commissioner filed a report before the Court which is filed
  as Annexure P-1 along with the S.L.P. On 15.10.1997, the
  Special Court by a common judgment allowed both ~he LG.Cs
  holding the appellants herein as land grabbers and directed to
                                                                       0
  deliver the vacant possession of 12.5 guntas of land to the 1st
  respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed
  Writ Petition Nos. 29675 and 29712 of 1997 before the High
  Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that
  the Special Court has not committed any error in allowing the
  LG.Cs. Questioning the same, the appellants filed the above          E
  appeals by way of special leave.

       3) We heard Mr. Roy Abraham, learned counsel appearing
 for the appellants and Mrs. K. Amareswari, learned senior
 counsel appearing for respondent No.1.                                F
     4) The only question to be considered in these appeals is
 whether the order passed by the Special Court and the
 impugned order of the High Court upholding the decision of the
 Special Court is sustainable or not?
                                                                       G
       5) Though in the grounds of appeal an objection was
 raised about the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted
 under the Act, no argument was advanced with regard to the
 same. On the other hand, the appellants challenged the merits
 of the impugned orders and the ultimate conclusion arrived. The
                                                                       H
    1201       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 1 S.C.R.
                                                                          •
A contesting respondent filed an application under Section 8(1)
  of the Act to declare the appellants herein as land grabbers and
  evict them from an extent of 15 guntas of land forming part of
  Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar Village. She filed counter contending
  that she is bona fide purchaser and she is in possession and
B enjoyment of her property since the date of purchase and
  perfected title to the schedule property by adverse possession.
  Before the Special Court, common evidence was recorded. On
  behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Ex. A-
  1 to A-21 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW 1
c was examined and EX. 81 to B-14 were marked. The Special
  Court examined CW-1 and Ex. C1 to C-8 were marked. The
  Special Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary
  evidence, found that the applicant before it is the owner of 12%
  guntas of land forming part of Sy. No. 30 as specifically shown
  in the sketch of the Commissioner and declared the respondents
0
  as land grabbers and directed to deliver possession as far as
  L.G.C. No. 162 of 1994 is concerned and granted permanent
  injunction to an extent of 27% guntas of land in S.No. 30 against
  the respondents in L.G.C. No. 133of1995. The said order was
E confirmed by the High Court.
         6) It is useful to refer the definition of "Land Grabbing" and
    "Land Grabbers" as defined in Section 2(e) and Section 2(d) of
    the Act respectively:
           "Section 2(e) - "land grabbing" means every activity of
F          grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the
           Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable
           institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other
           private person) by a person or group of persons, without
           any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking
G          possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal
           tenancies or lease and licences agreements or any other
           illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct
           unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give
           such lands to any person on ren:al or lease and licence
H          basis for construction, or use and occupation, or
             SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. v.                      1202
       SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM. J ]

          unauthorized structures; and the term "to grab land" shall     A
          be construed accordingly."
          "Section 2(d) - "land grabber" means a person or a group
          of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any
          person who gives financial aid to any person for taking
          illegal possession of lands or for construction of B
          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 also includes the successors-in-interest."         C

           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
~-   burden is on her to prove her right and title to the property and if
                                                                          0
     the same is discharged, the burden shifts on the respondents. It
     is not in dispute that the land was purchased by the applicant
'    and appellant Nos. 1 & 2 forming part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar
     Village. It is also not disputed that Sy. No. 30 was not sub-
     divided. It is the claim of the applicant that she purchased the
     property from Ramaiah and S. Krishnamurthy under a registered E
     sale deed dated 15.02.1979 which is marked as Ex. A-1 which
     is part of Sy. No.30. Before the Special Court, the applicant
     very much relied on the report of the Manda! Revenue Officer.
     On the direction of the Court, a Commissioner was appointed,
     who after inspection submitted a report. Based on the oral and F
     documentary evidence coupled with the report of the Manda!
     Revenue Officer as well as the Commissioner, the Special Court
     found that the applicant is in possession of 27 Yi guntas of land
     and the adjoining 12 Yi guntas of land forming part of Sy. No. 30
     which is claimed by the applicant is adjoining to the said land. G
     The Special Court disbelieved the claim of the appellants that
     there is a boundary wall in between those lands i.e., 27 Yi guntas
     of land and 12 Yi guntas of land and rightly rejected their stand.
          7) Mrs. K. Amareshwari, learned senior counsel appearing
                                                                         H
    1203       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A   for the contesting respondent before us by taking us through
    the relevant portion of the order of the Special Court submitted
    that the applicant has duly established her case by placing oral
    and documentary evidence and the Special Court after
    accepting the same and basing reliance on the records as well
8   as the report of the Commissioner rightly passed an order which
    was confirmed by the High Court. In the light of the submission,
    we verified the order of the Special Court and the materials
    placed before it. It shows that after tabulating all the details
    furnished by the applicant and the respondents, it concluded as
c   follows:
           "8-x ............... Thus the respondents 1 & 2 or their
           successors-in-interest are in occupation of land which does
           not belong to them. The report of the Commissioner shows
           that about 12 % guntas as shown in the sketch appended
D          to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is in the
           occupation of R1 and R2 or their vendees. In the absence
           of any evidence to show that 12 % guntas of land belongs         /



           to R 1 & R2 and that it lies in Survey Number 30 A, it shall
           be presumed that the said land which is in SY. No.30 and
E          which abuts the extent of 27 % guntas of land of the
           applicant, belongs to the applicant, particularly when it is
           shown in Ex. 86 to Ex. 813 that one of the survey numbers
           in which plots 50 to 55 lie, is 30AA. In fact the area covered
           by plots 49 to 55 is the disputed land."
F          "For the foregoing discussion, we hold that the appellant
           is the owner of 12 % guntas of land forming part of the land
           in Sy. No. 30 as shown in the sketch appended to the
           report of the Commissioner and that the rival title set up
           by R1 & R2 over the said land is not true and valid."
G
          Inasmuch as the above conclusion is based on the
    appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the
    applicant and the respondents as well revenue records and the
    report of the Commissioner, the said conclusion cannot be
    faulted with. The High Court, after analyzing all the materials
H
             SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. v.                   1204
       SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

     and finding that the petitioners before them who are appellants   A
     before us are land grabbers and grabbed 12 Yi guntas of land,
     concurred with the decision arrived at by the Special Court and
     dismissed their writ petitions.
           8) In the light of the abundant acceptable materials in the
     form of oral and documentary evidence coupled with the report 8
     of the Manda! Revenue Officer and of the Commissioner, we
·•   agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Special Court and
     the High Court and reject the clai.rn of the appellants.
     Consequently, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed,
     accordingly, we do so. No costs.                                  C
     D.G.                                      Appeals dismissed.




)