GOUNI SATYA REDDI versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 06-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOUNI SATY A REDD! 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
MAY 6, 2004 
B 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Gabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 : 
C 
Transfer of Property-Execution of sale deed by the holder of 
General Power of Attorney on behalf of owner of the property-Challenged 
by another person claiming himself to be the holder of the General Power 
of Attorney-Suit for injunction filed by Vendee-Another suit filed by the 
Vendor owner claiming possession back from the Vendee-Trial Court 
D granted interim injunction and rejected the suit filed by the Vendor-Suit 
for declaring genuine holder of General Power of Attorney filed before 
Special Court-Special Court directed the Vendee to transfer the possession 
back to the Vendor holding the another person as genuine holder of 
General Power of Attorney--Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: 
Person in possession of the property illegally and without lawful entitlement 
E is a land-grabber-Since Vendee published a notice inviting objections 
against the proposed transaction, he did not intend to obtain possession 
of the property illegally by creating a false power of attorney-Signing of 
document/power of attorney either by writing full name or short one would 
hardly raise any suspicion about the genuineness of the signature of its 
F executor--Non-examination of attesting/identifying witnesses of the deed/ 
power of attorney could not be a circumstance so strong to hold that a false 
document was created-Neither there is any finding nor any circumstances/ 
facts available on record doubting the genuineness of the holder of the 
General Power of Attorney in respect of the property to impute any such 
G knowledge to the Vendee at the time of execution of the sale deed in his 
favour-Mere fact of legally not entitled to the possession would not fa/fill 
the ingredients of land-grabber-Vendee could not be termed as land-
grabber-Hence, Order passed by the Courts below could not be sustained 
and set aside-Possession of the property restored to the Vendee-
H Directions issued. 
484 
G. S. REDDI v. GOVT. OF A.P. 
485 
Appellant-Vendee purchased the land in dispute by means of a A 
registered sale deed executed on behalf of its owner by the holder 
of the general power of attorney. When the Vendee started 
construction over the land, another person claiming himself to 
be the holder of general power of attorney on behalf of the owner-
Respondent No. 3, raised objections against the construction. B 
Vendee filed a suit for injunction which was granted by the Court. The 
alleged holder of the general power of attorney filed a suit for the 
owner claiming possession over the land. Granting the injunction, trial 
Court dismissed the suit. Vendor filed a suit before Special Court 
through the alleged general power of attorney holder for declaring 
himself to be the genuine holder. The Special Court decreed the suit C 
directing the Vendee to hand over possession of the property to the 
Vendor. This order was upheld by the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD : 1.1. Grabbing of any land must be without any lawful 
entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally; 
the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the 
possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements E 
are missing, it would not be a case of land grabbing. (491-BJ 
1.2. The Special did not record in its finding that the appellant 
had created false documents by creating false power of attorney. In the 
absence of any such finding it may be examined as to what extent F 
taking over of possession by the appellant without lawful entitlement 
was "with a view to take possession illegally". Mere fact of not being 
lawfully entitled to enter into possession by itself would not lead to the 
inference of land grabbing unless possession is illegally taken with that 
view in mind. 1493-A-B-CJ 
1.3. No finding has been recorded by the Courts below against the 
case of the appellant that he had purchased the land on the basis of the 
power of attorney on payment of certain sum as a consideration. Though 
G 
the case as taken by the appellant is mentioned in the judgment yet no 
finding rejecting this part of the case has been recorded. (494-A-BJ 
H 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4. Respondent No. 3, Vendor, has not examined himself in 
support of his case tha

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