Mandal Revenue Officer vs Goundla Venkaiah & Anr

3. By an order dated 27.5.1997, the Special Tribunal allowed the application of the appellant and declared that the schedule land is Government land which had been grabbed by Gonda Mallaiah and his successors and directed them to hand over possession thereof to the Government within 2 months. The appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed by the Special Court by detailed order dated 18.8.1998.

17. In Gouni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P. and others 2004 (7) SCC 398, another two-Judge Bench appears to have expressed a slightly different view. The appellant in that case claimed to have purchased the land in dispute by a registered sale deed executed on behalf of respondent No.3 by his General Power of Attorney holder, S. Prabhakar Rao. Before starting construction, he obtained permission from the competent authority. One Tirupathiah claiming to be General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.3 objected to the construction by asserting that the earlier General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.3 had no right to transfer the property. Thereupon, the appellant filed a suit for injunction. An order of status quo was passed. Tirupathiah also filed a suit. The trial Court finally decreed the suit of the appellant and dismissed the one filed by Tirupathiah. Thereafter, the appellant filed suit before the Special Court for restraining Tirupathiah from interfering with his possession. The Special Court did not believe the appellant's case that he had purchased the property from S. Prabhakar Rao and dismissed the suit. While allowing the appeal preferred against the order of the Special Court, this Court referred to the definitions of land grabber and land grabbing and ruled that the appellant cannot be treated as land grabber because he was not aware of the fact that he was entering into possession illegally and without lawful entitlement.

Every appeal under this sub-section shall be preferred within a period of sixty days from the date of Judgment or order of the Special Tribunal;

(underlining is ours)

Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property."

35. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is dismissed. As a corollary, the orders passed by the Special Tribunal and the Special Court shall stand automatically restored. Within two months from today, the respondents shall hand over vacant possession of the schedule land to an officer not below the rank of Additional Collector, who shall be nominated by District Collector, Rangareddy District. Needless to say that if the respondents fail to hand over vacant possession of the schedule land to the officer nominated by the District Collector then he shall take possession of the land and, if necessary, use appropriate force for that purposes.

36. With a view to ensure that the respondents are not able to manipulate the State apparatus for continuing their illegal occupation of schedule land in question, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries not to regularise their possession. The respondents shall also not be entitled to invoke jurisdiction of any court including the High Court for securing an order which may result in frustrating implementation of this Court's order.