STATE OF A.P. versus HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 19-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 4 S.C.R. 817 
STATE OF A.P. 
V. 
HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3413 of 2010) 
APRIL 19, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: 
A 
B 
ss. 8(1) and (10) - Application by State Government for c 
declaring the respondents as land grabbers -
HELD: 
Aggrieved person is prima facie required to prove before 
Special Court that the land is owned by such person and on 
such proof, the presumption u/s 10 will be attracted and the 
burden would shift on the respondent to prove that he had not 
D 
grabbed the land - In the instant case, the Special Court has 
rightly recorded a finding that prima facie the appellant-State 
has failed to establish that the title of the land vests in it or 
that the respondents are land grabbers thereof - Title - Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 11 - Constructive res judicata. 
E 
Title: 
Entries in revenue record - HELD: May not be sufficient 
as conclusive proof of title nor can the same be relied on for 
proof of establishing the title as such - Andhra Pradesh Land 
F 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - ss. 8(1) and 10. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. 11 - Constructive res judicata - Writ petition before 
High Court arising out of ownership dispute regarding land -
G 
Municipal Corporation and State Government arrayed as 
respondents therein - No plea raised by State that writ 
petitioners were land grabbers in respect of the said land -
Later, State Government filing application uls 8(1) in respect 
817 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A of the same land claiming' ownership of the said land and· 
seeking declaration that the respondents (writ petitioners in 
earlier writ petition) were land grabbers of its land - HELD: 
The proceedings uls 8(1) initiated by State Government would 
be barred by constructive res judicata - Andhra Pradesh 
B Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - ss. 8(1) and (10). 
The State Government filed an application uls 8(1) of 
the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 
1982 with a prayer that the respondents be declared as 
land grabbers in respect of 17, 786.5 sq. mtrs. of land. The-
e respondents opposed the application stating that the land 
was purchased by them under a registered sale deed 
dated 31.3.1946 and since then they were in possession 
thereof. The Special Court dismissed the application. The 
High Court in the writ petition filed by the State affirmed 
D the order of the Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeal filed by the State Government, 
the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 makes it clear that an 
aggrieved person is prima facie required to prove before 
the Special Court that the land is owned by such person 
and on such proof, the presumption that the person 
F alleged had grabbed the land would be against the latter 
and the burden of proving that the land has not been 
grabbed by him shall be on such person. [Para 7) [822-
8-C] 
1.2. In the instant case, the sole basis of the 
G appellant-State to claim the land was the entries made in 
survey records showing that the scheduled property was 
surveyed and was shown in it as a gap area i.e. un-
surveyed area as per the old survey records and as such 
it could only be declared to be Government land as has 
H been recorded in Column No. 20 of the T.S.L.R. Apart 
STATE OF A.P. v. HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. 
819 
LTD & ANR. 
from the said revenue record and issuance of gazette 
A 
notification, no other document was filed by the appellant-
State to show that the said land belonged to it. It is trite 
that entry in the revenue record alone may not be 
sufficient as conclusive proof of title nor can it be relied 
on for proof of establishing the title as such. [para 20] 
8 
[826-E-G] · 
1.3. Looking to the matter in totality ana from all 
angles, it can safely be construed that prima facie the 
appellant-State failed to establish that the respondents 
are land grabbers of the land or the title thereof vested 
C 
in the State. Thus, the Special Court committed no error 
in drawing presumption in favour of the respondents that 
they cannot be declared as land grabbers as 
contemplated u/s 10 of the Act and the prim a facie burden 
which lay on the appellant that the land has been 
D 
grabbed by the respondents has not at all been 
discharged. On the other hand, the facts would clearly 
establish that respondent No.1 purchased the sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.