LexOM PRAKASH SINGH versus M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 333 OM PRAKASH SINGH v. M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [S.8. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) ANDHRA PRADESH LAND GRABBING (PROHIBIT/ON) ACT, 1982: A B c s.2(e) and 7-A - 'Land grabbing' - Jurisdiction of Special Court/Special Tribunal - Application seeking possession of land and alleging execution of fabricated/fraudulent sale deeds - Held: Tribunal derives jurisdiction only when jurisdictional facts are disclosed in the petition - It is 0 ..- necessary not only to allege the act of land grabbing within the meaning of provisions of the Act, but also a prima facie case must be found out in order to enable the Tribunal to issue notice as regards existence of an act of land grabbing - Ordinary disputes with regard to title of property are not within exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court/Tribunal - In the instant E case, the bald a/legations of creating a forged document made in the petition were rightly held by the Special Court and '"' High Court not falling within the mischief of land grabbing - In a case of this nature when jurisdictional facts have not been pleaded Special Court could not have exercised its F jurisdiction - It has now been settled that Special Court has jurisdiction to decide question of adverse possession - However, the respondents have claimed their title through registered sale deeds which were executed long time back .. " and have prima facie satisfied the Special Court that they have G lawful entitlement to the land and have possession thereof for long - Special Court and High Court rightly rejected appellant's application - Adverse possession. 333 H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R. ..... " A The appellant, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, filed an application on 16.2.2002 before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 stating that the land in question, admeasuring 16 acres, 30 guntas situate in State of B Andhra Pradesh, was a joint family property and on the death of the Karta of the joint family, namely, 'RK', on 22.2.1978, the respondents taking advantage of the death of 'RK' fabricated 3 fraudulent sale deeds dated 4.3.1980, ~ 6.3.~980 and 17.3.1981 impersonating the said 'RK'.- The c stand of the respondents was that 'RK', who was the exclusive owner of the property in question, transferred his right, title and interest in favour of respondent No.1, who in turn transferred his right title and interest by executing sale deeds in favour of respondents No.2 to 6. D According to respondent No.1, 'RK' died in 1992 and not in 1978 as alleged by the appellant. The Special Court ... dismissed the application holding that in the absence of requisite pleadings, the only question as to whether 'RK' was alive on the dates of execution of the sale deeds in E the year 1980, could not be determined as fundamental fact necessary fcir initiating proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act in the absence of requisite pleadings. The High Court having dismissed applicant's writ petition, he filed the appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 provides for the powers of the Special Tribunal. The first proviso appended G thereto empowers the Special Court to reject a case brought before it without any further enquiry, if prima ~ ... facie it appears to be frivolous or vexatious. The Act indisputably confers a wide jurisdiction upon the Special Tribunal and Special Court. All attributes of a civil H litigation can be gone into by the Special Court and the 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A 1992. Such broad questions, have rightly been held to be beyond the purview of the Special Court as the concise statement did not disclose the foundational fact of land grabbing. In the concise statement, it was merely stated that the transfers effected through the manipulated and B fabricated sale deeds were not the transfers effected by 'Rk.'; and that all the respondents had resorted to illegal, unJawful and malafide acts of creation of documents by forged signatures of late 'RK' and fabrication of the sale ~ deeds impersonating the dead pers'!n. Such bald c allegations, both according to the Special Court as also the High Court by itself would not come within the mischief of 'land grabbing' as defined in s.2(e) of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.