AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Ors. MANU/SC/8051/2006 : AIR2006SC3691 . 2. Before, however, adverting to the said question, we may notice some salient features of the said Act. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh noticed organized attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups, to grab either by force or by deceit or otherwise, lands (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private persons) as also the fact that the land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of lands through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain sections of the people resulting in large accumulation of unaccounted wealth and as thereby public order was also adversely affected now and then by such unlawful activities of land grabbers in the State in respect of urban and urbanisable land. The said Act was enacted with a view to prohibiting the activities of land grabbing in the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Special Court may follow its own procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made there under while deciding the Civil liability. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 260 or Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 263 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be apply to such trial. (iii) When a person is convicted of an offence of land grabbing attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation, and it appears to the Special Court that, by such force or show of force or intimidation the land of any person has been grabbed, the Special Court may if it thinks fit, order that possession of the same be restored to that person after evicting by force, if necessary, any other person who may be in possession of the property. 9. Section 7A provides for the powers of the Special Tribunal, Sub-section (1) whereof reads as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s punishable under this Act. (Central Act 2 of 1974). (6) Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land. Provided that the Special Court shall by notification specify the fact of taking cognizance of the case under this Act. Such notification shall state that any objection which may be received by the Special Court from any person including the custodian of evacuee property within the period specified therein will be considered by it. Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee property objects to the Special court taking cognizance of the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further with the case in regard to such property; Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 8. Section 17B provides for guidelines for interpretation of the Act as contained in Schedule appended thereto. 16. The Government of Andhra Pradesh made rules in exercise of its power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act known as the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short "the Rules"). Rule 5 lays down the procedure for suo motu action. Rule 6 provides for verification of application. Rule 7 mandates that the Special Court before taking cognizance of the case is to give notice in form 2A by publishing it in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. Sub-section (2) thereof makes a similar provision in relation to the Special Tribunal. Rules furthermore provide for notice to the person interested as also notice to the land grabbers. It provides for filing of a counter affidavit. Rule 10 provides for the application of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matters as provided for therein. Rule 15 lays down the procedure for taking possession. 17. The Special Court has also framed regulations in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sub-section (5A) of Section of the Act, inter alia, providing for: 1. Place of sitting of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunals, indisputably are entitled to determine any question or issue including the question of title or possession in the proceedings initiated before it. Special Courts and the Tribunal not only have trappings of a court but also of a civil court and, thus, are entitled to determine complicated questions of title. 24. Would the question of adverse possession be beyond the purview of its jurisdiction is the question. There appears to be an apparent conflict in the decision in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra) and N. Srinivasa Rao (supra). Whereas in the former, the defence of adverse possession had specifically been gone into holding that the appellant therein had acquired indefeasible title by adverse possession, opining: 17. It is pertinent to note that mere allegation of an act of land grabbing is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court. In both Section 7 (1) and Section 8(1) of the Act the phrase "any alleged act of land grabbing" is employed and not "act of land grabbing". It appears to us that it is designedly done by the legislature to obviate the difficulty of duplication of trial once in the courts under the Act and over again in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been taken away by reason of the provisions of the said Act, they require strict construction. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court having been expressly ousted and in any event, the Tribunal and/or special court being not an alternative efficacious complicated question in regard to adverse possession, it was urged, must be held to be beyond the purview of the Tribunal. 29. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the said Act being a special law having been enacted to deal with special circumstances and providing for a high powered tribunal, it must be held to have the jurisdiction to deal with a question of adverse possession. Acquisition of an indefeasible title by adverse possession, the learned Counsel would submit, also being a question of title, there is absolutely no reason as to why special court and/or tribunal can be said to be having no jurisdiction in relation thereto. 30. The validity of the Act is not in question. We have, therefore, no other option but to proceed on the basis that the same is constitutional. In view of the question referred to before us, we are also not called upon to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the proceedings. Burden of proof is in the realm of procedural law. By reason of such a provision, substantive right of the parties on an immovable property is not taken away. Jurisdiction is exercised by the Tribunal and/or Special Court upon arriving at a satisfaction in regard to existence of jurisdictional fact. Even in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 in the event, the plaintiff proves his title, the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that he has acquired title by adverse possession. See Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam and Ors. AIR2008SC346 . 35. The defendant in all circumstances, therefore, would be entitled to prove that he is lawfully entitled to possess the land. No law says that if a new forum is created by a special statute in terms whereof the jurisdiction of the civil court becomes barred, the Tribunal constituted thereunder must be a substitute for a civil court, not only with regard to all its powers but also with all its deficiencies. If the Special Act satisfies substantive due process, in our opinion, the same would satisfy the legal requirements. 36. Acquisition of an indefeasible title by prescription is a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur of the State and against the land grabber, but also it must be shown that he had taken illegal possession thereof. 42. The Bench in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji has applied both the broader and narrow meanings of the said expression. It would not, however, mean that all the tests laid down therein are required to be satisfied in their letter and spirit. What is necessary to be proved is the substance of the allegation. The proof of intention on the part of a person being his state of mind, the ingredients of the provisions must be considered keeping in view the materials on records as also circumstances attending thereto. What would be germane for lawful entitlement to remain in possession would be that if the proceedee proves that he had bona fide claim over the land, in which event, it would be for him to establish the same. 43. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji this Court has categorically held that the requisite intention can be inferred by necessary implication from the averments made in the petition, the written statement and the depositions of witnesses, like any other fact. The question which must, therefore, have to be posed and answered having regard to the claim of the land grabb....