Telangana High Court
P.Vijaya Lakshmi vs N.Krishna Rao on 20 April, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
****
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.P.Nos.21310 and 22803 of 2004 and 22484 of 2006
DATE :20-04-2026
W.P.No.21310 of 2004
Between :
Ms.P.Vijaya Lakshmi and another
... Petitioners
And
1. N.Krishna Rao S/o Late Srinivasa Rao and 21 others.
... Respondents.
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)
Since these Writ Petitions arise out of L.G.C.No.48 of 2000, they are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and
Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr.T.S.R.Praneeth along
with Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents in all these Writ
Petitions.
2
3. The present Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari
to call for the records pertaining to judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed by the
Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982
(for short, ‘the 1982 Act’) Hyderabad, in L.G.C.No.48 of 2000 and to quash the
same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law.
4. Among the respondents before the learned Special Court, respondent
Nos.11, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 have filed W.P.No.22803 of 2006. Respondent
Nos.15 and 16 have filed W.P.No.21310 of 2006. Respondent No.10 has filed
W.P.No.22484 of 2006, assailing the common judgment in L.G.C.No.48 of 2000,
while the remaining respondents have not challenged the said judgment.
5. The parties herein are referred to as per their status before the learned
Special Court.
6. The case of the applicant. before the Special Court, in brief, is that he
had purchased land admeasuring Acs.4.20 guntas equivalent to 21,780 square
yards in Sy.No.101 of Katedan Village, Ranga Reddy District, under registered
sale deeds dated 06.11.1963 and 26.03.1965, forming part of the schedule land
in the LGC. His name was also mutated in the revenue records as possessor
and pattadar. Subsequently, Sy.No.101 was sub-divided into 101/E of Katedan
Village by the Survey and Settlement Department.
3
7. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1 to 5 in LGC claiming
themselves to be owners and possessors of the schedule land created fictitious
sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 13 and got them registered in the
Sub-Registrar’s office.
8. The applicant contended that for the purpose of construction of go-
downs for his factory, he requested the revenue authorities to demarcate the
subject land, but in spite of long lapse of time, the authorities failed to comply
with his request. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.13498 of 1995 before this Court,
whereunder this Court directed the concerned authorities to demarcate the
land. Pursuant thereto, on 21.05.1998, the Surveyor in the presence of Panchas
identified and demarcated the land by fixing the boundaries. In the said survey
report, the Surveyor clearly stated that respondent Nos.1 to 13 grabbed the
portion of the applicant’s land and out of Acs.4.20 guntas, only an extent of
Acs.2.37 guntas is in occupation of the applicant. It is contended that since
respondent Nos.1 to 13 grabbed his land without any entitlement by creating
fictitious documents, he filed LGC before the learned Special Court against the
said respondents.
9. Resisting the above contentions, respondent No.1 in LGC filed his
counter-affidavit before the learned Special Court and contended therein that
the applicant is not the owner of Acs.4.20 guntas of land and he got only
Acs.4.00 guntas and his name was mutated in respect of the said extent in the
4
revenue records. It is also contended that respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the
owners and pattadars of the land in question, i.e. Acs.4.00 guntas and divided
the same into plots and alienated them to several persons through registered
sale deeds. It is contended that the applicant raised dispute with regard to
boundaries of the land in the year 1984-85 and the same was settled between
them.
10. It is further contended that no notice was given to the respondents at
the time of survey of subject land by the revenue authorities. Further, the
applicant suppressed the real facts of acquisition of his land for greenbelt and
also for National Highway and that a neighbor, Venkatapathi Raju, having
purchased Acs.6.00 guntas of land, occupied an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas, but
the applicant did not choose to file a case against Venkatapathi Raju, nor
added as party therein.
11. The respondent No.1 also stated that the vendees have already
constructed pucca houses long back in the land in question and have municipal
numbers, electricity connection etc. and now the colony is well developed, and
as such, LGC is not maintainable against house properties and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
12. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a memo adopting the counter filed by
respondent No.1.
5
13. Respondent No.6 filed separate counter-affidavit denying all the
allegations made by the applicant in his application. She reiterated all the pleas
taken by respondent Nos.1 to 5 contending primarily that respondent Nos.1 to
5 being owners of Acs.4.00 guntas of land executed sale deed in her favour
and also in favour of respondent No.7 on 12.05.1988 in respect of land
admeasuring 450 square yards in Plot Nos.8 and 9 situated at Shivarampally,
Ranga Reddy District. She further stated that the applicant suppressed the fact
of dismissal of another Land Grabbing Case filed by him with regard to the
same property. She also stated that respondent Nos.6, 7 and 10 are residing in
their respective plots for the last 14 years and perfected their title by way of
adverse possession.
14. Respondent Nos.7 and 10 adopted the counter of respondent No.6 by
way of Memo.
15. Respondent No.11 filed a separate counter-affidavit resisting the LGC
contending that respondent Nos.12 and 13 purchased the properties under
agreements of sale from respondent Nos.4 and 5. They also filed suits of
specific performance of agreements of sale and obtained decrees in their
favour. Pursuant to the same, the sale deeds were registered, thereby, they are
in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1985.
6
16. It is further stated that respondent No.11 purchased 1000 square yards
of land from respondent No.3 in the year 1985 under registered sale deed
dated 25.01.1985, obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, constructed
a building in the said premises and obtained other statutory requirements. He
claims that he is in the possession since 1985 claiming that the applicant is not
entitled for any relief as sought for and the LGC is liable to be dismissed.
17. Respondent Nos.12, 13 and 17 to 21 adopted the counter filed by
respondent No.11 by filing memo.
18. Respondent No.14 while adopting the counter-affidavit of respondent
No.11, submitted that she received the property to an extent of 913 square
yards bearing No.6-3-171 in Sy.No.101 from T.Sai Baba by way of gift, which
was registered on 12.02.1999. Since then, she is in possession and enjoyment
of the same. She prayed for dismissal of the application.
19. Respondent Nos.15 and 16 while adopting the counter-affidavit of
respondent No.11, stated that they purchased the property to an extent of 971
square yards with house No.4-108/5 (old) and New No.6-3-173 from
respondent No.13 through registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000 and since
then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and
therefore, contended that the claim of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.
7
20. Basing on the above respective pleadings, the following issues were
framed:
i) “Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property?
ii) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and
binding?
iii) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act
-XXII of 1982?
iv) To what relief?”
21. To substantiate the claim of the applicant, he himself was examined as
PW.1 and documents Exs.A.1 to A.21 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of
the respondents, RWs.1 to 10 were examined and voluminous documents
under Exs.B.1 to B.111 were marked on their behalf.
22. The learned Special Court, while dealing with issue Nos.1 and 2
elaborately and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded the
admitted facts that one Sadala Ramireddy and Sadala Nagireddy, sons of Malla
Reddy, are the pattadars of land admeasuring Acs.18.02 guntas situated in
Sy.No.101 of Khatedan Village. The applicant initially purchased Acs.2.00 acres
of land vide registered sale deed dated 6.11.1963 under Ex.A.1. Later, he
purchased Acs.2.20 guntas of land vide registered sale deed dated 26.03.1965
under Ex.A.2, from the original pattadar. Thus, the applicant, in all, purchased
Acs.4.20 guntas of land.
8
23. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 are the sons of Sadala Ramireddy and
respondent No.5 is the son of Sadala Nagireddy, whereas respondent No.2 is
their sister’s son. It is also not in dispute that the applicant with an intention to
construct go downs for his factory, and on the directions issued by this Court in
a writ petition filed to that effect, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land
Records, deputed the Surveyor to demarcate the land of the applicant.
Accordingly, the Surveyor measured the applicant’s land and demarcated the
same and fixed boundaries. He conducted a panchanama and also drawn a
Map covered under Ex.A.7 and submitted a report under Ex.A.8.
24. Thus, it is the case of the applicant that he came to know from
panchanama and plan under Ex.A.7 that respondent Nos.1 to 5 grabbed his
land illegally and sold away to other respondents and the other respondents
are in occupation of his land. That respondent Nos.1 to 5 knowing fully well
that the schedule property belongs to the applicant illegally sold to respondent
Nos.6 to 13 and they are in possession of the schedule property except C
portion shown in Ex.A.7-scketch.
25. Before the learned Special Court, seriously attacking the right and
ownership of the applicant over the application schedule land, all the
respondents unanimously raised the following aspects:
“1. That the applicant purchased only 4 acres of land and not an extent of
Acs.4.20 gts. from the original Pattedars and therefore, the applicant has no
9right over the application schedule land. That the mutation was also noted to
an extent of 4 acres in favour of the applicant and there was no sub-division
as Sy.No.101/E as claimed by the applicant and claim of the applicant has to
be nagatived.
2. That the neighbouring owner of the land, Venkatapathi Raju occupied
nearly 1 acre of land of the applicant and hence the application schedule land
did not belong to the applicant and respondents 1 to 5 are the owners of the
application schedule land and other respondents are the bonafide purchasers
of the same.
3. That the HUDA authorities acquired the land for the purpose of green belt
and it is not shown in the Sketch prepared by the Surveyor under Ex.A-7 as
well as in the rough Sketch submitted by the applicant under Ex.A-15 and
P.W.1 admitted the same fact and if we deduct the said extent taken for green
belt, the applicant is not the owner of the application schedule property.
4. That in order to widen the National High way road, the concerned
authorities has taken 20 gts of land of the applicant and the same was not
shown by the applicant in the Plan Ex.A-7 and hence applicant is not the
owner of the application schedule land.
5. That respondents 1 to 5 are the owners of the application schedule land
and R-6 to R-13 are bonafide purchasers of the applications schedule land and
there is no intention to respondents 6 to 13 and others to grab the land of the
applicant. It is said that after purchase of the land, the respondents also
raised structures after obtaining valid permission from the concerned
authorities and got electricity and water connection and paying taxes and are
in possession and enjoyment of the same continuously and uninterruptedly
and therefore, they are not land grabbers as claimed by the applicant.”
26. With regard to the above five aspects, the learned Special Court
appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that Ex.A.1
registered sale deed shows that the applicant at the first instance purchased
10
Acs.2.00 guntas of land on 06.11.1993 and later on, under Ex.A.2 – registered
sale deed dated 26.03.1965, purchased an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas of land
from the original owners and pattedars, who are the fathers of respondent
Nos.1 to 5. Even though the respondents pleaded that the applicant purchased
only Acs.4.00 guntas, during cross examination of RW.1 and RW.2, they have
admitted the purchase of Acs.4.20 guntas of land.
27. It is to be noted that RW.1 in his evidence stated that, “I am well
acquainted with the particulars of survey report under Ex.A.7”, which fact
clearly establishes that RW.1 got notice of survey under Ex.A.7. Apart from
that, RW.2 admitted in his evidence that they have not filed any documents to
show that the applicant managed or manipulated the documents to the extent
of Acs.4.20 guntas of land. RW.2 also admitted in his evidence that initially the
name of the applicant was mutated to an extent of Acs.4.00 guntas only and
later it was recorded as Acs.4.20 guntas. In addition, the respondents did not
challenge the registered sale deeds covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 or the
pattadar passbooks under Exs.A.3 and A.4. In view of the above, the learned
Special Tribunal concluded that the applicant purchased Acs.4.20 guntas of
land and there was no force in the contention raised on behalf of the
respondents and the same was negatived.
28. As regards the next aspect of occupation of nearly Ac.1.00 of land by
neighbouring owner, Venkatapathi Raju, RWs.1 and 2 in their evidence
11
admitted that their father sold Acs.6.00 of land to Venkatapathi Raju and he
already fixed boundaries to his land and in Ex.A.8 survey report, the surveyor
stated that the land of Venkatapathi Raju was surrounded by a compound wall.
No recorded evidence is filed by the respondents to show that Venkatapathi
Raju occupied the land of the applicant. Therefore, the learned Special Court
held that mere oral assertion of the respondents stating that Venkatapathi Raju
encroached the applicant’s land is imaginary and based on assumptions and the
said contention was rejected.
29. With regard to the contention of taking the land for the purpose of
greenbelt and National Highway road widening, under Ex.A.7 – sketch the
Surveyor demarcated the land taken for the purpose of green belt and the road
widening. RWs.1 and 2 also admitted the sketch under Ex.A.7. On considering
the existing facts, the learned Special Court concluded that extent taken for the
purpose of green belt, for National Highway road widening and 1000 square
yards of land sold by the applicant, is included in the land of the applicant as
shown in the sketch and the same extent can be deleted from the total extent
of applicant’s land and hence it cannot be said that the applicant set up a false
claim as contended by the respondents.
30. Though it is vehemently contended on behalf of the respondents stating
that the applicant set up a false claim and they are the owners of the
application schedule land, which is evident by the layout plan under Ex.B.1
12
prepared by respondent Nos.1 to 5 and purchased by respondent Nos.6 to 12,
signed by the applicant himself, and on which, the respondents based their
total claim, but Ex.B.1 layout is only a rough sketch and it is not approved by
any Gram Panchayat or any Municipality and this fact was also admitted by the
respondents and Ex.B.1 is marked only for limited purpose to show the
signature portion of the applicant.
31. The applicant as PW.1 explained the circumstances as to how he signed
Ex.B.1 in the year 1982 and he came to know about the grabbing and sale of
the application schedule land only when the surveyor surveyed the land. RW.1
also admitted in his evidence that the boundaries of the applicant’s land are
distinct to his land and are in existence from 1965. RW.1 further admitted that
there is no connection to the applicant and the layout prepared by them under
Ex.B.1. In Ex.A.8 survey report also it was mentioned that Krishna Rao
submitted his neighbour’s layout along with his sale deeds. In view of the
above admitted facts, the learned Special Court convinced with the explanation
offered by the applicant to sign on Ex.B.1 and that Ex.B.1 is Xerox copy of
rough sketch and no original plan was filed and held that the same cannot
extinguish the right of the applicant over the application schedule property.
Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.1 to 5 sold the property with
the consent of the applicant.
13
32. Considering all the above facts, the learned Special Court concluded that
there is no force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents and
accordingly, allowed the LGC.
33. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners Sri Raghuveer Reddy,
vehemently contended that the very foundation of the applicant’s claim is
inconsistent and unsupported by reliable evidence. Though the applicant
claimed to have purchased land to an extent of Acs.4.20 guntas under Exs.A.1
and A.2, the originals of which were not produced before the learned Special
Court. Further, the mutation proceedings initially reflected only Acs.4.00 guntas
of land as having been purchased by the applicant and thereafter, without
notice to the writ petitioners and their vendor, got corrected the mutation
proceedings only on 03.03.1986 and the said proceedings were also not filed.
This casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the applicant’s claim.
34. It is further stated that the father of S.Pratap Reddy and others were the
original owners of the land admeasuring Acs.18.02 guntas out of which an
extent of Ac.6.00 was already sold to one Mr. Venkatapathi Raju and even if
the land purchased by the applicant is accepted as Acs.4.20 guntas, still
substantial extent of Acs.7.22 guntas of land remained with the said S.Pratap
Reddy and others. Out of such remaining extent, an extent Ac.1.08 guntas of
land was acquired for the purpose of road widening by HUDA and the
remaining land of Acs.6.14 guntas continues to be in possession of the said
14
S.Pratap Reddy and others. S.Pratap Reddy and others have prepared Ex.B.1
layout, which was admittedly signed by the applicant, and pursuant to the said
layout, several plots were sold to various persons including the vendor of the
writ petitioners. Therefore, their claim is valid.
35. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant has not even
aware of boundaries of his own land and he approached the learned Special
Court with unclean hands by suppressing several facts. It is also stated that the
entire property is in Sy.No.101 only and there was no demarcation at any time,
until a survey was conducted in 21.05.1998. Learned counsel places reliance
upon Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries
Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the 1923 Act’) and submits that the survey relied upon by
the applicant vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Sections 9 to 13 of the 1923 Act. It is contended that no notices were issued to
the neighbouring owners and the fixation of boundaries was not notified in the
District Gazette and no notification has been fixed in the Village Chavadi. In the
absence of such compliance, the survey conducted cannot attain finality or
conclusiveness and it is not binding on the writ petitioners. More so, the
surveyor himself having indicated that the respondents are in possession of
part of the land, the very basis of the application filed by the applicant before
the learned Special Court becomes not maintainable.
15
36. It is reiterated that under the 1923 Act, any survey conducted without
notice to the neighboring owners is invalid and does not bind the respondents
and based on the ex parte survey, no claim can be filed before any Court. It is
further stated that on southern side, Venkatapathi Raju who purchased
Acs.6.00 guntas of land is in possession of more than Acs.7.00 guntas of land
and the same was not measured apart from 1000 square yards sold to one
Basheer Ahmed in 1998. Therefore, the report of the surveyor is prepared as
desired by the applicant and the same cannot be believed and it is invalid.
37. It is also stated that part of applicant’s land was taken over for greenbelt
and also for road widening and the said fact was not even mentioned by the
applicant and the learned Special Court having held that the same is a serious
lapse on the part of the applicant, erroneously granted relief in favour of the
applicant. Learned counsel argued that the Special Court committed a grave
error in concluding that the land of Mr. Venkatapathi Raju was encircled by a
compound wall, in the absence of any cogent evidence demonstrating that the
said land was duly measured or its boundaries are properly fixed. The failure of
the Court to direct measurement of the subject land has resulted in an
erroneous conclusion that the petitioners herein and other purchasers are land
grabbers, despite having acquired the property through registered sale deeds
from vendors possessing valid title.
16
38. Learned counsel also contended that the predecessors of the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 held an extent of Acs.6.14 guntas, out of which various portions
were lawfully alienated through registered sale deeds. The applicant himself
admitted that alleged land grabbing by certain respondents came to his
knowledge during 1997-98, and further acknowledged that a portion of the
land had been acquired for green belt and road widening purposes, though
such facts were not disclosed in the application. In light of these admissions,
the petitioners argue that the Special Court ought to have held that the
applicant had set up a false claim, instead, the Special Court erroneously
ordered eviction of bona fide purchasers.
39. The respondents further contended that the learned Special Court failed
to appreciate Panchanama under Ex.A.8, wherein it was stated that the writ
petitioners are in possession of the subject property ever since 1985, having
purchased under registered sale deeds, and raised constructions over the said
property and are paying taxes to the local authorities. In fact, certain suits
were filed and decreed in favour of respondent Nos.12 and 13 before the
learned Special Court and thereafter, sale deeds were executed. It was also
categorically stated that respondent Nos.6 to 16 are not land grabbers as
alleged by the applicant and are lawful purchasers and are in peaceful
possession more than 15 years.
17
40. Learned counsel finally contended that the applicant has failed to prove
prima facie title over the subject property, and the respondents before the
learned Special Court had also acquired title by virtue of adverse possession
being in possession more than 20 years by the time of instituting LGC. The act
of Land Grabbing as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act 1982
(for short, ‘the 1982 Act’) has not been established on behalf of the applicant
except his own evidence neither the surveyor nor any other person was
examined in order to establish the title of the applicant. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the impugned judgment is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and vitiated
by suppression of material facts, non-complained with statutory requirements
and improper appreciation of evidence, warranting interference by this Court.
Therefore, contended to set aside the order passed by the leaned Special Court
and allow the Writ Petitions.
41. On the other hand, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel
contended that during the examination of RW.1 – Sri S.Mohan Reddy, who is
respondent No.4, and RW.2 – Sri S.Yadi Reddy, who is respondent No.5,
admitted the execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2, i.e. extracts of registration of sale
deeds dated 6.11.1963 and 26.03.1965, in favour of the applicant. However,
they only dispute is with respect to the extent of land as Acs.4.00 guntas or
Acs.4.20 guntas. Even this aspect was also admitted by the respondents in the
oral evidence. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the certified copies of the sale deeds which
18
are admissible in evidence in terms of Sections 74, 76, 77 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 even otherwise the writ petitioners have not raised any
objection with respect to Exs.A.1 and A.2 when they are marked in the
evidence and such an objection cannot be raised belatedly after the same are
admitted in evidence.
42. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v/s. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple1 to contend that Order 13 Rule 4 CPC
provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by
or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge
amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the
admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is
made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of
admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the
document being endorsed as admitted or admitted in evidence.
43. Though it is contended by the writ petitioners that the applicant got the
revenue records corrected during the year 1985 to the extent of 4.20 guntas,
without notice to the purchasers, the correction in the revenue records with
respect to the extent is not relevant to the purchasers who have acquired
interest only after the year 1985. Further, the mutation of the property in
1 (2003) 8 SCC 752
19
revenue records or correction therein neither creates nor extinguishes title to
the property and it has only presumptive value on title. To support the said
contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Singh v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh2, wherein it was held
that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes
title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are
relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been
expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.
44. The allegation of the respondents that the survey was conducted without
their notice pursuant to the directions of the High Court, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the same is rebutted, since RWs.1 and 2 in their cross-
examination accepted that they were aware of the survey. Even otherwise, with
the consent of both the parties, this Court ordered for survey and the report
filed by the Surveyor under Ex.A.7 is part of the record. That apart, a
comparison of Ex.A.7 and the subsequent survey report show no variation or
discrepancy between the two surveys and therefore, the petitioners cannot
contend that they have suffered any prejudice on account of survey under
Ex.A.7.
45. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that though the petitioners
relied upon Section 10 of the 1923 Act, the same deals with the survey of the
2 2021 SCC Online SC 802
20
Government land and is only applicable in the event of boundary disputes
between the Government land and the private land and it cannot be extended
to survey of private land.
46. As regards the contention of adverse possession and delay in
approaching the Special Court, learned Senior Counsel contended that the
applicant has no knowledge of purchase by respondent Nos.11 to 16 and he
came to know about the said purchase only when the survey report under
Ex.A.7 dated 21.05.1998 was filed. In support of his contention, learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in T.Anjanappa v/s.
Somalingappa3.
47. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the applicant was only
asked about the signature on the layout and his signature alone was marked as
Ex.B.1 and the applicant was not questioned about the layout or its location
and therefore there is no admission about the layout document, which itself is
an unapproved sketch, and cannot be marked in the evidence.
48. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v/s. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (died) through
LRs4 with respect to the scope of enquiry in a writ petition questioning the
judgment of the Special Court and stated that the purchasers could not make
3 2006 (7) SCC 570
4 (2003) 10 SCC 121
21
out any error in decision making process by the learned Special Court or that
the learned Special Court has ignored any vital evidence, committed error of
jurisdiction or that the decision suffers from any perversity.
49. Finally, learned Senior Counsel contends that under Section 10 of the
1982 Act, the burden is cast upon the respondents to establish their title. In
this regard, he places reliance upon the judgment in V.laxminarasamma v/s.
A.Yadaiah5, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the prevision to
mean that if the applicant prima facie establishes his title, the onus shifts to the
respondents to establish their title. Therefore, the writ petitioners failed to
discharge their burden of proving the title as they claim to have acquired the
schedule property from respondent Nos.1 to 5 who have no right or title over
the schedule property. Therefore, the respondents/writ petitioners are held to
be land grabbers. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petitions and the
respondent Nos.1 to 16 may be declared as land grabbers.
50. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised as
well as perused the record in depth.
51. Section 2(d) of the1982 Act defines “Land Grabber” as under;
“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 unauthorised structures5 2009 (5) SCC 478
22thereon, 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 abovementioned acts; and also
includes the successors-in-interest”.
52. “Land grabbing” has been defined in Section 2(e) of the 1982 Act to
mean:
“2. (e) land grabbing’ means every activity of grabbing of any (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 possession of such lands, or enter into or create
illegal tenancies or lease and licence agreements or any other illegal
agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorised
structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on
rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation,
of unauthorised structures; and the term ‘to grab land’ shall be construed
accordingly.”
53. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2022,
while noting the submissions made by both sides and upon consensus, directed
the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Ranga Reddy, to
conduct a fresh survey of the entire extent of Acs.18.02 guntas in Sy.No.101
and its sub-divisions, after due notice to all concerned parties.
54. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, notices were issued on
22.02.2022 and 28.03.2022, and survey was conducted on 06.04.2022. The
report indicates that the applicant is in possession of Acs.4.20 guntas
23
(excluding land acquired for Green Belt and National Highway), and the
demarcation corroborates the earlier survey findings under Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8.
Pursuant to the orders of this Court, since this exercise has already been
conducted, the repetition of the survey will not be required.
55. It is not in dispute that the total extent of land in Sy.No.101 of Katedan
Village is Acs.18.02 guntas owned by the predecessors of respondent Nos.1 to
5. Out of the said extent, Acs.6.00 guntas was sold to Venkatapathi Raju, the
applicant purchased Acs.2.00 guntas under registered sale deed dated
06.11.1963, further purchased Acs.2.20 guntas under registered sale deed
dated 26.03.1965. Thus, the applicant acquired Acs.4.20 guntas in total, and
his name was entered in revenue records.
56. Though initially the extent was shown as Acs.4.00 guntas, the same was
corrected in the year 1985 to Acs.4.20 guntas and pattadar passbook was
issued accordingly. The said facts stand established by Exs.A.1 and A.2, which
are certified copies of registered sale deeds and admissible under Sections 74,
76 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even otherwise the writ petitioners
have not raised any objection with respect to Exs.A.1 and A.2 when they are
marked in the evidence and such an objection cannot be raised belatedly after
the same are admitted in evidence.
24
57. The contention of the respondents regarding mutation entries is also
unfounded. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh’s case (supra),
mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and are only for fiscal
purposes. Therefore, discrepancy in revenue entries does not affect the title
established through registered sale deeds.
58. Much emphasis has been placed by the respondents on the alleged
invalidity of the survey dated 21.05.1998 on the ground of lack of notice.
However, RWs.1 and 2 in their cross-examination admitted knowledge of the
said survey. Further, the subsequent survey conducted pursuant to orders of
this Court after due notice corroborates the earlier findings. The reliance placed
on Sections 9 to 13 of the 1923 Act is not applicable, as the said provisions
relate to Government land and boundary disputes involving Government land
and not purely private disputes.
59. At the outset, it is to be noted that the applicant traces his title to the
schedule property through registered sale deeds dated 06.11.1963 and
26.03.1965 and the said fact is established by Exs.A.1 and A.2, certified copies
of the sale deeds, which are admissible in evidence and the respondents did
not raise any objection while marking. Even the respondents admitted the same
in their evidence. Once the execution is admitted, the burden shifts upon the
respondents to disprove either the extent or the validity of title, which they
have failed to discharge. Even though the other respondents filed number of
25
documents viz., their respective sale deeds, copies of civil suits, copies of
caveats, copies of pahanies, copies of agreement of sale, property tax receipts,
electricity bills, telephone bills and etc., which are marked as Exs.B.3 to B.111,
but these documents per se do not establish the title in their favour and that
the very sale itself is void.
60. Though the subsequent purchasers of land raised an objection with
regard to the correction as to the extent of land to Acs.4.20 guntas in the year
1985, the same is not relevant to the purchasers who have acquired interest
only after 1985. The said contention of the respondents that the applicant
purchased only Acs.4.00 guntas is wholly untenable, inasmuch as the same is
not supported by any cogent documentary evidence and stands contradicted by
their own admissions. It is well settled that once execution of registered sale
deeds is admitted, the presumption of correctness attaches thereto, and the
burden lies heavily upon the contesting party to rebut such presumption.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the applicant has
established title over Acs.4.20 guntas of land, as rightly held by the learned
Special Court.
61. The contention that Venkatapathi Raju encroached Ac.1.00 of land
belonging to the applicant is unsupported by any documentary evidence. On
the contrary, Ex.A.8 survey report indicates that his land is separately
demarcated and enclosed by compound wall. Therefore, the said contention of
26
the respondents is nothing but a speculative assertion and has been rightly
rejected by the learned Special Court and this Court also does not find any
basis to interfere with the said finding.
62. Though the respondents claim protection as bona fide purchasers
placing reliance upon Ex.B.1-unapproved layout, the doctrine of bona fide
purchase cannot be invoked where the vendor himself has no valid title, as
rightly held by the learned Special Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence
more particularly the layout under Ex.B.1 whereunder only the signature of the
applicant is marked and that does not confer any valid title on them. It is a
settled principle that no person can conveys a better title than he himself
possesses. Therefore, the subsequent purchasers cannot claim any better title
than their vendors. Thus, the plea of bona fide purchase is devoid of merit and
is accordingly rejected.
63. The plea of adverse possession must be established by clear, cogent and
unequivocal evidence showing hostile possession to the knowledge of the true
owner. But, in the present case, the respondents claim possession under the
sale deeds, such possession is not hostile but permissive and no evidence of
open and hostile denial of title is produced. Further, the simultaneous plea of
title and adverse possession is legally impermissible.
27
64. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Anjanappa (supra) held
that adverse possession means a hostile possession which is expressly or
impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation
Act, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his
title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e.
possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title
to the property claimed.
65. It is to be noted that several respondents claim to have constructed
houses and obtained municipal amenities, however, such factors by themselves
do not confer title nor can they legitimize an otherwise unauthorized
occupation. In fact, some other respondents have not approached this Court
challenging the order passed by the learned Special Court, and therefore, the
same has become final.
66. In view of the foregoing discussion, the learned Special Court has
meticulously analyzed the entire evidence both oral and documentary and has
recorded findings based on proper appreciation of the material on record. The
scope of interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is limited and this Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Special
Court unless such findings are shown to be perverse, arbitrary or suffering from
jurisdictional error. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been
demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court.
28
67. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of
the learned Special Court is well-reasoned, legally sustainable and based on
cogent evidence and the contentions raised by the respondents are devoid of
merit and do not dislodge the findings recorded by the learned Special Court.
68. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date:20.04.2026
GJ
29
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.P.Nos.21310 and 22803 of 2004 and 22484 of 2006
Date:20.04.2026
GJ