2006 (3) TMI 727 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the actions arising out of the dispute raised by the heirs of Uppari Rammaiah can be said to attract the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of sale deeds under the Tenancy Act of 1950.
2. Application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
3. Acquisition of title by adverse possession.
4. Applicability of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
5. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
6. Observations made by the High Court in writ applications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Sale Deeds under the Tenancy Act of 1950:
The High Court held that the sales effected by Kaneez Fatima Begum to Uppari Ramaiah on 1st May 1961, and by Uppari Ramaiah to Mir Riyasat Ali on 8th February 1961, were invalid as they were hit by Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950. The court concluded that without a Validation certificate, the transfers did not confer any right or title on the transferees.

2. Application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The High Court found that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act would not aid the transferee since a transfer without prior permission or sanction of the Tahsildar under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950 was prohibited. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that when the initial transfer was invalid, the subsequent acquisition of title by the transferor could not cure the defect.

3. Acquisition of Title by Adverse Possession:
The Special Judge found that the applicants had acquired title by adverse possession, notwithstanding the mischief of Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950. However, the Supreme Court held that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to decide on adverse possession, as this falls within the domain of civil courts.

4. Applicability of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982:
The Supreme Court agreed with the respondents that an act of land grabbing must involve an attempt to dispossess followed by actual dispossession. Since the transferees from Mir Riyasat Ali were in possession and their possession was not disturbed, the attempts by the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah did not constitute land grabbing under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.

5. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982:
The Supreme Court held that the Special Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the acquisition of title by adverse possession. The court emphasized that the Special Court's role is limited to determining whether there has been an act of land grabbing and identifying the guilty party.

6. Observations Made by the High Court in Writ Applications:
The Supreme Court addressed the grievance of N. Srinivasa Rao regarding the High Court's observations in the writ applications. The court clarified that these observations were made in passing and would not bind the parties in any properly constituted suit where the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, stating that the orders did not call for interference. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the contempt applications were also disposed of accordingly.