2002 (1) TMI 1319 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant could be held to be a land grabber.
2. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the case.
3. Whether the appellant had perfected his title to the land in dispute by adverse possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant could be held to be a land grabber:
The appellant was accused of being a land grabber of land measuring 2 acres 06 guntas in Survey Nos. 9/15 Paiki, 9/16, and 9/17 of Khairathabad Village. The Special Court and the High Court upheld the claim of the first respondent (the State of Andhra Pradesh) that the appellant was a land grabber. The appellant traced his title to the land under an unregistered agreement for perpetual lease executed in 1954 and a registered perpetual lease deed in 1957. However, the Special Court found that the land in dispute was not part of the Inam land and that the appellant had no lawful entitlement to it. The court also noted that mere prima facie bona fide claim to the land could not avert being roped in within the ambit of the expression "land grabber." The appellant's possession of the land was found to be unauthorized and without any lawful entitlement, fulfilling the definition of "land grabbing" under the Act.

2. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the case:
The Special Court's jurisdiction was challenged by the appellant, but it was upheld by both the Special Court and the High Court. The Act provides that the Special Court has jurisdiction to try cases of land grabbing and determine questions of title and ownership. The Special Court is deemed to be a Civil Court with all the powers of a Civil Court and a Court of Session. The High Court concluded that the Special Court was within its jurisdiction to deal with the matter and determine the title involved. The appellant's challenge to the transfer of the suit from the Civil Court to the Special Court was dismissed as not pressed, and the validity of the transfer was not urged before the High Court in the writ petition.

3. Whether the appellant had perfected his title to the land in dispute by adverse possession:
The appellant claimed that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, having been in possession of the land since 1954. However, the Special Court found that the appellant's possession could not be ascribed to the date of the unregistered perpetual lease agreement (Ex.B-39) or the registered lease deed (Ex.B-40) due to tampering and lack of authentication. The court counted the period of possession from 1958 when the appellant obtained permission for construction and found that the statutory period of 30 years was not completed by the date of the suit in 1985. The court also noted that the appellant applied for occupancy certificate and paid siwai jamabandi, nullifying his animus to possess the land adversely. The High Court upheld the Special Court's finding that the appellant did not perfect his title by adverse possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the High Court, affirming the findings of the Special Court. The appellant was held to be a land grabber, the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the case, and the appellant did not perfect his title by adverse possession. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.