IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20071 OF 2002 B e t w e e n: Andhra Vidyabhi Vardhini Sangham, Rep. by its Sescretary : Sri Chanda Vijay Kumar, S/o.Kanthaiah, Aged about 53 years, Resident of Vasavi Colony, Warangal and three others. - - - Petitioners. A n d 1. The Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-District Judge, Warangal and 18 others. - - - Respondents. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY WRIT PETITION No.20071 OF 2002 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records relating to the decree and judgment in L.G.A. No.21/2000 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, dated 12th August, 2002 confirming order in L.G.C. No.4/1993 on the file of the Court of Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act- cum-District Judge, Warangal dated 26th April, 2000 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession of the schedule property in any manner and pass such other orders as the Court deems fit. 2. The writ petitioners are the respondents Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 in the Land Grabbing Case No. 4 of 1993 and appellants Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 in the Land Grabbing Appeal No.21 of 2000 and further the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in the writ petition are the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 in the Land Grabbing Case and respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the Land Grabbing Appeal and further the respondents Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition are the respondents Nos.2, 4, 10, 11 and 12 in the Land Grabbing Case and respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the Land Grabbing Appeal and the respondents Nos. 18 to 20 are the respondents Nos.3, 5 and 9 in the Land Grabbing Case and appellants Nos.2, 3 and 6 in the Land Grabbing Appeal and the respondents Nos.11 to 17 are the respondents Nos.15 to 21 in the Land Grabbing Case and respondents Nos.10 to 15 in the Land Grabbing Appeal respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Land Grabbing Case. 3. The application was filed by the petitioners for declaring the respondents as land grabbers of the schedule property and so also structures raised therein as illegal and unauthorized and for recovery of the possession of the property evicting the respondents there from and for granting a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for wrongful possession and award profits at Rs.1,80,000/- per year till the date of recovery of the possession of the property against the respondents 1 to 10. 4. The case set out in the application is as follows : The schedule land with an extent of 1938 Sq. Yards originally belonged to Hussani Baig and Mujafar Ali Baig and Shah Bee sons and daughter of Babbar Ali Baig. The same property was purchased by the Educational Department under a registered sale deed on 17th Ishwandar 1336 Fasli i.e., the year 1926. Immediately thereafter the possession of the property was delivered to the Education Department. Under such circumstances, the respondents Nos.1 to 10 grabbed the property illegally and constructed mulgies therein and let out the structures to the other respondents in the case without taking necessary permissions for the construction of mulgies. Further, in spite of demands, the respondents failed to vacate the property. 5. On behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 10 counter was filed adopted by the respondents Nos.6, 8 and 9 in which it is claimed as follows : It is false that Hussani Baig and Mujafar Ali Baig etc., were the owners of the property and they sold the property to the Education Department and vacant possession of the property was delivered to the Education Department and accordingly the Education Department was in the possession of the property for certain period. In fact, the first respondent happened to be the owner of the property and in that capacity it applied for permission to the Municipality for necessary construction which was not rejected within statutory period for which it is to be deemed that in fact the permission was accorded and hence accordingly they proceeded with the construction work in the property. Further, the first petitioner was a suspended employee of the first respondent organization on the ground of misappropriation of funds and therefore he bore grudge against the first respondent and filed the application. 6. On behalf of the petitioners the then District Educational Officer, Warangal, N. Sree Rama Murthy, was examined as PW.1, Retired District Educational Officer, N. Krishna Murthy, was examined as PW.2, Deputy Inspector of Surveyor in the office of R.D.O. Mulug, A. Sammaiah, was examined as PW.3 and Executive Engineer R & B, D. Janardhan Reddy, was examined as PW.4 and the first petitioner was examined as PW.5 and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. On the other hand, no body was examined but Exs.B-1 to B-10 were marked by consent on behalf of the contesting respondents. 7. Basing upon the material available the Land Grabbing Tribunal upheld the claim of the petitioners and allowed the application declaring the respondents as land grabbers directing the respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- per year to the State of Andhra Pradesh as compensation for the wrongful possession of the property and as profits accrued from the land from the date of occupation of the property till the date of its eviction respectively and further awarding exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- with a direction to pay Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and the balance to the second and third petitioners with a further direction to the contesting respondents to redeliver the property. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the appeal was preferred before the Land Grabbing Court, before which the appellants-respondents pleaded : (1) That the application is not maintainable at the instance of first petitioner, who is a pro bono publico ; (2) The property claimed by the petitioners is not identifiable and cannot be located or demarcated ; (3) The petitioners have not established prima facie title and lastly the learned counsel contended that an opportunity may be given to the respondents for adducing evidence by remanding the matter to the Special Tribunal. 8. The Land Grabbing Court framed the following points : 1. Whether petitioners 2 and 3 prima-facie proved their title to the application schedule land? 2. Whether the application schedule land is identifiable? 3. Whether the matter requires reconsideration by the Special Tribunal? 9. The Land Grabbing Court upon considering the material available on record upheld the order passed by the Land Grabbing Tribunal so far as the declaration of title of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 over the property is concerned but dismissed the findings given by the Tribunal to pay the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and profits at Rs.1,00,000/- per year from the date of occupation of the property till the date of eviction of the respondents form the property and also awarding exemplary costs. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition has been filed. 10. It is emphatical that the allegation of the respondents’ occupation of the property long ago and their continuous possession of it ever since having knowledge of the actual ownership of the Government over the property is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents in this writ petition argues that the Government has to prove that : 1) The occupation of the property was with the criminal intention of grabbing it which pre-requisites collection of necessary evidence as to when it was occasioned exactly, what was in their mind then and how long it continued, in other words his assertion is that the law incorporated in the Act comes into force or operation only when the person occupying it would have a Criminal mind to acquire it or occupy it at the very inception and when there is no evidence to make such assessment the application of the Act does not arise at all, and 2) The occupation of the respondents over the property for many decades without interruption though the claim of acquiring title of the property by adverse possession is in absentia and the abnormal silence of the petitioners from initiating suitable action very much go against the claim of the Government whereas the relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to cover such persons. 11. The Act is intended to curb the activity of land grabbing by lawless persons. It is comprehensively enacted to involve all those who got Criminal and as well as Civil liability having involved in grabbing certain property within the meaning of the Act which exposes them to certain Civil and Criminal action. Separate proceedings can be initiated to evict the land grabbers and order them to deliver the properties in their possession to the actual owners of the properties and to punish them. Their exposure to criminal action is ordained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act whereas how his civil liability is to be dealt with is encompassed in Sections 7-A and 8 of the Act. 12. It is enough for the applicants to establish title to have the benefit or presumption under Section 10 of the Act which reads : “Where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the Special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person”. 13. It is necessary to examine whether the respondents are land grabbers and their act amounts to land grabbing within the scope and ambit of the Act. Section 2-d of the Act defines land grabber as ‘a person or 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 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.’ Further, Section 2-e of the Act defines land grabbing means ‘every activity of 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 possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licenses agreements or struck unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and license basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures and the term “to grab land’ shall be construed accordingly.’ 14. Certainly the Act of land grabbing connotes wider amplitude compared to mere occupation or temporary criminal trespass of a property. There is no connotation of any intention to acquire title over certain property either in the definition of land grabbing or in the definition of land grabber and one of the and in fact the main essentialities to attract the provisions is just occupation of the property illegally. Such intention to occupy certain property not belonging to him and belonging to others illegally can be determined by his conduct throughout the length of his occupation of the property irrespective of the proof of the longevity of the occupation. If ascertainment of actual date of occupation of the property or the length of its occupation is a condition precedent to attract the provisions in true sense then the intendment of the legislation to attract the provisions is ridiculous. In the case of absentee land lordism, land lords concerned may not have accessibility to their properties every day and whenever some third parties occupy their properties they may not be able to take necessary measures immediately particularly when there has been long gap from the date of actual occupation of the properties and actual date of acquiring necessary knowledge of the occupation of the properties in which case it is difficult to give necessary evidence to establish as to when exactly the occupation has taken place. When a person occupies certain property not of his own and believing it to be the property of others it infers that he has occupied the property with malafide intention and his continuation in the possession of the property is illegal in the eye of law by which it can be termed that he is a land grabber within the meaning of the Act. If a person occupies the property having been under a mistaken belief that he got legal right to do so but having realized later his status over the property, vacates the property it is altogether a different situation. Therefore, when the respondents have been in the occupation of the property having knowledge about the ownership of the property since decades and continued to be in the possession of the property not acceding to the demands of the applicants to vacate the property as the circumstances of the case assert it will determine their conduct that they occupied the property and continued to be in the possession of the property illegally which definitely attracts the definitions of ‘land grabbing’ and ‘land grabber’. This is one best example of how the Government properties are taken care of and how callously and negligently concerned Government officials have been discharging their duties which are expected to be carried out legitimately and also to what extent they aided the respondents to derive benefit out of the land consciously or unconscious ignoring the sanctity attached to their duties for a very long period of time. Therefore consequently they are to be sent out of the property. 15. The Land Grabbing Tribunal so also the Land Grabbing Court examined the matter in true sense taking all relevant details into consideration and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the forums. The grounds taken on behalf of the contesting respondents in this Writ Petition were not put forth either before the Land Grabbing Tribunal or before the Land Grabbing Court. Further, when the pleas taken in the writ petition are answered in the negative it follows in the circumstances of the case that the orders passed by the Land Grabbing Tribunal as confirmed by the Land Grabbing Court are to be affirmed. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. __________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE:25-02-2011. Dsh.