LexN. SRINIVASA RAO versus SPL. COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B N. SRINIV ASA RAO V. SPL. COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT AND ORS. MARCH 23, 2006 [B.P. SINGH AND Al.TAMAS KABIR. JJ.J Andhra Pradesh (Te/ungr.:mu Area) Tenuncv und Ai;ricult!lrul I ands .let. C 1950-Sections 30, 38£, 47 und 49 A.P. land Grubbing (Prohi·~·tir,n1 Ad. 1982-Sections 2(d) and 2(eJ -Trumfer uf Property Act. l/i8~ S.·. "'"1 13 Protected tenant purchas«d agriculturul land~ from fund owner Ht" 1,.,. rhe Tenancy Act--Purported sale of land by the protect"J tt'1wnt tu \'uriuus transferees--Legal heirs of the protected tenam tried to .Ji1possess th1 !ands by executing a General Pow,r uf Attornl}' and ,·nlc'rinv it.I, an Agreu11cn1 of D Sale-Petition filed bv the transferees beji1rc Speciul c ·,. :. r unda 1he Lund Grabbing Act alleging land gn1bbing by the leguf h«in \: · nu! Cuurt ullvwed the petition by holding the lei;ul heirs as land grahh«r.1· w··! : ,,1 the 1ransferees had perfected their title by adverse possession --Writ f'c t.ric•n hefore High Court by the legal heirs--High Court u/lowed the Writ Petilions by holding E that the legal heirs are not land grabbers-High Court. however. held that the transfer of agricultural funds in favour of various transferees. who are non- agriculturists, are not valid under the provisions of the Tenancy Att- Correctness of-Held. the action of the legal heirs of the protected tenant does not constitute an act of land grabbing and hence they are not land grabbers- F G H Transfer of agricultural lands by a protected tenant to a non-agriculturist is void under the Tenancy Act and hence the transferees cannot claim title to such /ands-Special Court under the Land Urabbing Act does not have jurisdiction to decide title on the transferees by adverse possession-Provisions of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable since the initial transfer of lands by an agriculturist to a non-agricultun~·t is void. One KFB was the owner of agricultural laPds which is governed by the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950. UR, who was a protected tenant, purchased 14 acres and 6 guntas of land from KFB under a sale deed for a consideration and obtained a certificate under section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and 286 N. SRIN!VASA RAO•·. SPL. COURTUNDER AP. LAND GRABBING(PROHIBITION) ACT 2 8 7 Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 from Revenue Divisional Officer. Prior to A the execution of the sale deeds, the tenant UR was purported to have sold part of the lands to MRA, who in turn purported to have sold part of the lands to one PN and to one CR by a sale deed. The names of PN and CR were duly mutated in Town Survey Registers and in Revenue records. On the death of CR, his share in the land devolved on his legal heirs. PN and the legal heirs of CR filed an application before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against the legal heirs of UR alleging that they conspired to grab the disputed lands B by executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of one NSR authorising him to convert the disputed lands into plots and to sell and C execute sale deeds in respect thereof in favour of purchasers. The legal .heirs of UR also executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of NSR in respect of the disputed lands who sold it to others. The Special Court allowed the application and held the legal heirs of UR and NSR as land grabbers within the meaning of the Act and directed criminal proceedings under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. '"' D '.i; ·i·1 •· The legal heirs of UR and NSR filed Writ Petitions before High Court. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions by holding that the legal heirs of UR were not land grabbers. The High Court, however, held that the sale deeds executed by KFB in favour of UR and UR in favour of MRA are not valid under section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950; that in the E absence of a requisite Certificate under the Tenancy Act of 1950, subsequent transfers in favour of the others including the applicants did not confer any right or title to them; and that section 43 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 is not applicable since a transfer in the absence of prior permission or sanction under the Tenancy Act of 1950 was F prohibited. The High Court also allowed the Writ Petition of NSR but with certain observations. The legal heirs of UR filed Review Petitions before High Court. NSR filed an application for clarification on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.