A.P. HOUSING BOARD versus MOHAMMED SADATULLAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 13-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

--:' 
" 
' 
_)! 
A.P. HOUSING BOARD 
v. 
MOHAMMED SADATULLAH AND ORS. 
APRIL 13, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 
2(d), 2(e) & 7-Possession of a portion of the land acquired in land acquisition 
proceeding for Housing Board not taken due to encroachment and thereby 
resulting in non-payment of compensation to land-owners-Writ Petition by 
land-owners, for declaring the land acquisition proceeding as null and void, 
was allowed by High Court-Land Grabbing Petition filed by /and-owners 
against several respondents and Housing Board-Respondents claiming 
ownership of land by purchase through registered sale deeds and perfection 
of their title by adverse possession-Housing Board claiming ownership on 
the basis of Award passed in the land acquisition proceeding-Special Court 
partly allowing the Petition by directing the Housing Board to hand over 
possession to the land-owners; by directing the respondents to establish their 
title before a Civil Court; and by holding in favour of some respondents that 
they had perfected title by adverse possession-Writ Petitions before High 
Court were dismissed-Correctness of-Held, on facts, Special Court was 
right in relying upon the order of the High Court in previous proceeding 
which has become final and hence claim by Housing Board is not 
maintainable-Setting aside the finding of adverse possession by the Special 
Court, liberty granted to the respondents to establish their title before Civil 
Court. 
Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of land 
admeasuring 45 acres belonging to land-owners for State Housing Board and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
an Award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer. The Housing Board could 
take possession of only 43 acres land and the remaining 2 acres petition G 
schedule land could not be taken into possession as the land-owners could 
~ not hand over vacant possession. The compensation for the petition schedule 
land was not paid to the land-owners as a result. 
Land-owners, thereafter, submitted an application to City Municipal 
107 
H 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A Corporation to sanction layout for sub-division of the petition schedule land 
asserting that they continued to remain owners since they had not received 
'y 
compensation for the petition schedule land. The Municipal Corporation 
required the land-owners to furnish 'No Objection Certificate' (NOq from 
the Housing Board. The land-owners filed a Writ Petition before High Court 
B challenging the requirement of NOC from the Housing Board and directing 
the Municipal Corporation to sanction layout without insisting for NOC and 
declaring that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petition 
schedule land had lapsed. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition. 
The land-owners filed a Land Grabbing Case before Special Court under 
c the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against several 
respondents including the Hol'.sing Board treating them as land grabbers. 
The respondents contended that they cannot be treated as land grabbers under 
the Act since they have purchased portions of the petition schedule land by 
registered sale deeds and constructed buildings on it; that they were in actual 
D 
occupation of the petition schedule land for several years; that their possession 
was never objected by the land-owners; and that they have perfected their title 
by adverse possession. The Housing Board contended that it cannot be treated 
as a land grabber on the ground that it became absolute owner of the petition 
-' 
schedule land after an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer 
~ 
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by granting compensation for the land; 
E that the compensation amount could not be paid to the land-owners since its 
vacant possession was not handed over to it; and that the order of the High 
Court is under challenge in Writ Appeal and that the order had not become 
final. The Special Court partly allowed the Land Grabbing Case by directing 
the Housing Board to deliver possession of the suit schedule land to the land-
F 
owners; by granting liberty to the respondents to establish their title before 
a Civil Court; and by holding in favour of some respondents that they had 
perfected title by adverse possession. 
..,_ 
The land-owners, Housing Board and an aggrieved respondent filed Writ 
Petitions before the High Court. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.