SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. versus SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1197 · Decided: 24-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 1S.C.R.1197 
SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1526-1527 of 2005) 
JANUARY 24, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Land laws: 
Land grabbing - Burden to prove right and title over the 
C property as owner- Held: Is on the person claiming it- If same 
is discharged, burden shifts to person in possession - A.P 
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982- s.8(1). 
The schedule land formed part of Sy.No.30, total 
D extent of which was Ac.3.19 guntas. Out of the said land, 
one 'R' owned an extent of Ac.1.29 guntas of land and 
one 'K' owned an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas. 'R' sold an 
extent of Ac.1.00 to applicant-respondent no.1. 'K' sold 
an extent of 30 guntas to appellant no.1 and Ac.1.00 to 
E appellant no.2. 
The contesting respondent filed a suit before the 
Munsif Magistrate for a perpetual injunction restraining 
appellants from interfering with the exclusive possession 
and enjoyment of her 1 acre land. The said suit was 
F transferred to the Special Court constituted under the A.P. 
Land Grabbing (Prohibitior.) Act, 1982 and was tried along 
with the case which was filed by respondent no.1 on the 
ground that the appellants grabbed 12-1/2 guntas of land 
out of her 1 acre land. The contesting respondent filed an 
G application under s.8(1) of the Act to declare the appellants 
as land grabbers and evict them from the extent of 15 
guntas of land forming part of Sy No.30. During the 
pendency of tha application, Commissioner was 
appointed to inspect and measure the disputed land, who 
H 
1197 
SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. v. 
1198 
SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA & ORS. 
submitted his report. The Special Court allowed both the A 
cases holding the appellants as land grabbers and 
directing them to deliver vacant possession of 12.5 guntas 
of land to respondent no.1. Appellants filed writ petitions 
which were dismissed. Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
8 
HELO: 1. In view of the claim of the applicant-
respondent that she is the original owner of the schedule 
property and her land was grabbed by the appellants, the 
initial burden is on her to prove her right and title to the c 
property and if the same is discharged, the burden shifts 
on the respondents. It is not in dispute that the land was 
purchased by the applicant and appellants Nos. 1 and 2 
forming part of Sy. No. 30. It is also not disputed that Sy. 
No. 30 was not sub-divided. It is the claim of the applicant D 
that she purchased the property from 'R' and 'SK', which 
Is part of Sy. No.30. Before the Special Court, the applicant 
very much relied on the report of the Mandal Revenue 
Officer. On the direction of the Court, a Commissioner was 
appointed, who after inspection submitted a report. Based 
on the oral and documentary evidence coupled with the E 
report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as· the 
Commissioner, the Special Court found that the applicant 
is in possession of 27-1/2 guntas of land and the 12-1/2 
guntas of land forming part of Sy. No. 30 which is claimed .. 
by the applicant is adjoining to the said land. The Special 
r 
Court disbelieved the claim of the appellants that there is 
a boundary wall in between those lands I.e., 27-1/2 guntas 
of land and 12-1/2 guntas of land and rightly rej~cted their 
stand .• [Para 6] [1202-C, 0, E, F, G] 
• 
2. The conclusion of special court is based on the G 
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the 
applicant and the respondents as well revenue records 
and the report of the Commissioner, the said conclusion 
cannot be faulted with. The High Court, after analyzing all H 
1199 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A the materials and finding that the appellants are land 
grabbers and grabbed 12-1/2 guntas of land, concurred 
with the decision arrived at by the Special Cou.rt and 
dismissed their writ petitions. [Para 7) [1203-G; 12t>4-A] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1526-1527 Of 2005. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.6.2002 of 
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
W. P. Nos. 29675 and 29712/1997. 
C 
Roy Abraham, Seema Jain, Vimlesh Kumar and Himinder 
Lal for the Appellants. 
K. Amreswari, V.S. Raju and Debasis Misra for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) These appeals are directed 
against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2002 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.