Adverse possession under land-grabbing law can be examined by the special forum, but proof must show hostile possession.

The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 is treated as a self-contained code enabling the Special Tribunal and Special Court to examine ownership, lawful possession and a plea of adverse possession within land-grabbing proceedings. The text states that such jurisdiction includes deciding whether occupants have perfected title by adverse possession, rather than confining the issue to ordinary civil courts. It further explains that adverse possession requires open, continuous and hostile possession with animus against the true owner for the statutory period; mere long occupation, cultivation or revenue payments are insufficient. Concurrent findings rejecting hostile possession therefore support eviction of unlawful occupants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal and Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 could examine a plea that the occupants had perfected title by adverse possession; (ii) Whether the respondents established title by adverse possession so as to defeat proceedings for eviction as land grabbers.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal and Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 could examine a plea that the occupants had perfected title by adverse possession.

Analysis: The Act was enacted as a self-contained code to curb land grabbing of Government, local authority, religious, charitable and private lands and created a special forum with powers to decide disputes relating to ownership, lawful possession and the status of a person as a land grabber. The statutory scheme, including the definition of land grabber, the provisions on burden of proof, the powers of the Special Tribunal and Special Court, and the finality attached to their decisions, shows that questions touching lawful entitlement and adverse possession can be examined within proceedings under the Act. The prior view that such questions necessarily belong only to ordinary civil courts was not accepted, and the later larger-bench view affirming the Tribunal and Special Court's jurisdiction was applied.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and Special Court and could validly be adjudicated under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents established title by adverse possession so as to defeat proceedings for eviction as land grabbers.

Analysis: Adverse possession requires possession that is open, continuous, hostile and accompanied by animus to hold against the true owner for the statutory period. The concurrent findings of the Tribunal and Special Court were that the land belonged to the Government, the respondents and their predecessor had illegally occupied it, and the documents relied upon to show long hostile possession were unreliable. Their own conduct in seeking assignment or regularisation of the land and paying land revenue negatived a claim of hostile possession, and mere long occupation or cultivation did not by itself ripen into title. Interference under Article 226 with these well-reasoned concurrent findings was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The respondents failed to prove acquisition of title by adverse possession, and their occupation remained unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was unsustainable, and the findings that the respondents were land grabbers and liable to be evicted were restored, with directions for handover of vacant possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, the special forum may adjudicate a plea of adverse possession, but such title is not established by mere long occupation or revenue payments; possession must be proved to be open, continuous and hostile against the true owner for the statutory period.

---