Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's possession of the suit land amounted to "land grabbing" so as to attract the definition of "land grabber" under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires not merely absence of lawful entitlement, but possession taken with a view to illegally take possession of land. The Special Court and the High Court proceeded mainly on the basis that title had not passed under the sale deed and that the appellant was therefore in possession without legal entitlement. The record, however, did not support a finding that the appellant had knowingly created a false power of attorney or otherwise entered into possession with the intention of taking illegal possession. On the contrary, the appellant had published notice inviting objections before purchase, had paid consideration, and the circumstances relied upon against him were insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for land grabbing.
Conclusion: The appellant was not shown to be a land grabber within the meaning of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act, and the adverse orders could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere absence of lawful title or entitlement to possession does not constitute land grabbing unless the person enters into possession with the intention of illegally taking possession.