-
< ,
"
-'f-
.
[2009) 7 S.C.R. 327 .
· V. LAXMINARASAMMA
V.
A. YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS.
Civil Appeal No.1849 of 2002
APRIL 29, 2009
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.)
Andhra Pradesh Lapd Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982
A
B
-
Tribunal I Special Court constituted under the Act -
Jurisdiction of, to go into question of adverse possession -
C
·Conclusion of Special Court to be operative.
Kanda Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 258 and N. Srinivasa Rao Vs.
Special Court under the A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act D
& Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 214 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2002) 3 sec 2ss
referred to
Para 1
2oos (4) sec 214
referred to
Para 1
E
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1849 .
of 2002
From the Judgement and Order dated 18.11.2000 of the
H[gh.Court of AP, at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 15844of1992
F
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1850 of 2002
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Annam D.N. Rao, Manoj Saxena,
Rahul Shukla, T.V. George, Nikhil Nayyar, for the appearing G
,~.
parties.
The Judgement of the·Court was delivered by
327
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
~
1. During the hearing of these appeals it was noticed that
two decisions of this Court rendered by two learned Single
Judges expressed contrary views and the matter was referred
B
to a larger Bench. The dispute relates to the Andhra Pradesh
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ( in short 'Act'). The two
decisions which were referred to by the Bench while making
reference to a larger Bench were Konda Lakshmana Bapuji
...
Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2002) 3SCC 258
and N.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Special Court under the AP.Land
c Grabbing (Prohibition) Act & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 214. The three
Judge Bench by judgment dated 3.3.2009 held that Kunda
Lakshmana Bapuji case (supra) lays down the correct law and
N. Srinivasa Rao does not. The reference was accordingly
answered. The three Judge Bench was of the view that the -
D tribunal/Special Court constituted under the Act has requisite
jurisdiction to go into the question of adverse possession. The
y
three Judge Bench also noticed that it is one thing to say that a
summary proceeding cannot be resorted to when a noticee
resists bonefide dispute involving complicated questions of title
E and his right remain in possession of the land. But, it is another
thing to say that although both the Special Court and/or Tribunal
which has all the powers of a civil court would not be entitled to
enter into such a contention: After the reference was answered
Ar •
this matter is placed before us.
F
2. So far as the appellant is concerned the following finding
have been recorded by the Special Court:-
"25.ln view of the fact that no document of the so-called
gift of the temples and the lands having been made in
G
favour of the ancestors of respondent 41, have been filed
in the court and also in view of the statement of respondent
·"'-,
41 that she has been appointed as a "Poojari" for a monthly
remuneration of Rs. 17.22 by the Revenue. Divisional
Officer, Hyderabad West and the remarks contained in
H
the pahanics as well as in the Endowment register of 50
.
,,,.
V. LAXMINARASAMMA V. A YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS. 329
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
Years old showing the land as inam land of Dhaibagh
A
temple, we are convicted that the petition-schedule land
. belongs to the applicant-temple.
27. xxxxx Since the respondent 41 and her ancestors have
been· Poojaris of the temples, there shall be no order of
eviction against her. We feel that in all fairness, some time
B
should be given to the respondents for demolishing the
houses and for taking away the structures on the petition-
schedule lands."
3. In view of the judgment of the three Judges-Bench the c
conclusion of Special Court are to be operative.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Crl. A. No. 1850 of 2002.
5. De-linked.
B.B.B.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex