Summary
The Court upheld a Special Court finding, affirmed by the High Court, that the appellant was a 'land grabber' under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in respect of 252 sq. yards falling in survey no. 9 though his sale deed described land in survey no. 10. Following Konda Lakshmana Bapuji, it held that 'land grabbing' carries both a broad and a narrow meaning, criminality in the trespass is not necessary, and the only intention required is that of illegally taking possession; once the applicant proves ownership prima facie, the onus under Section 10 shifts to the alleged grabber.
Issues
- Whether an encroachment or trespass can be treated as 'land grabbing' under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 only where there is obvious criminality and clear mens rea.
- Whether the allegations and the evidence (sale deeds, Commissioner's survey report and the appellant's failed injunction suits) established that the appellant was a 'land grabber' within Section 2 of the Act.
- Whether the summary nature of the Special Court's enquiry and the shifting of the burden of proof under Section 10 caused prejudice to the appellant.
- Whether the appellant's plea of title perfected by adverse possession through his predecessors-in-interest could succeed.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(cc), 2(d) and 2(e), Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982Reading the definitions of 'land belonging to a private person', 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' with Konda Lakshmana Bapuji, the Court held that clause (e) inclusively covers land of the Government, a local authority or a private person; that 'land grabbing' bears both its broad meaning (taking unauthorisedly, greedily or unfairly) and its narrow meaning (snatching forcibly or unscrupulously); and that criminality is not necessary, the mens rea being only the intention to take possession illegally, by oneself or through others, for third-party rights, construction or unauthorised use. The applicant must plead and prove both factum and intention. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 10)
- Section 10, Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982The initial burden to prove ownership prima facie lies on the applicant alleging land grabbing; once that is discharged a presumption arises and the onus shifts to the alleged land grabber, who may lead evidence to rebut it. A mere allegation of land grabbing does not raise the presumption. The shifting of onus after prima facie proof causes no prejudice to the respondent before the Special Court. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- Agreeing with Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 3 SCC 258, 'land grabbing' under the Act takes in both the narrow and the broad connotation of 'grab'; it cannot be said that the encroachment or trespass must necessarily involve criminality. The intention required is only that of illegally taking possession of land through unlawful or arbitrary means, by oneself or through others, for creation of third-party rights, construction, or unauthorised use and occupation. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- An allegation of land grabbing is the sine qua non for maintaining an application, but to hold a person to be a land grabber the allegations constituting land grabbing must be proved: the applicant must establish both the factum of taking possession and the intention to take possession illegally, so as to bring the person within the definition clauses of Section 2. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- The ingredients were pleaded and proved: the applicant's title deed placed her land in survey no. 9; the Commissioner (Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records) found the land in the appellant's possession to fall within survey no. 9 and not survey no. 10, which was the survey number in the appellant's own sale deed; and the appellant's two injunction suits, one against the applicant (dismissed) and one against the Municipality (withdrawn when the applicant sought impleadment), concerned the same property. Together these established land grabbing. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 16)
- Under Section 10 the applicant bears the initial burden of proving ownership prima facie; the presumption and the shift of onus to the alleged land grabber arise only on such proof, not on the bare allegation, and the alleged grabber then has ample opportunity to rebut. The shifting of onus after prima facie proof is discharged causes no prejudice; nor does the Act or the cited decision support the complaint about a summary enquiry, the Special Court being a specially constituted forum with civil and criminal jurisdiction intended to deal with land grabbing swiftly, and being nonetheless a civil court following the Code of Civil Procedure competent to grant the reliefs an ordinary civil court can. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 17)
- A plea of adverse possession founded only on the existence of a building on the land fails where no proof is offered of when the construction commenced and concluded; moreover, the applicant's having moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the Housing Society on becoming aware of the construction undermines the foundation of a hostile animus. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment affirming the Special Court's finding of land grabbing and the eviction direction left undisturbed; pending applications disposed of.