STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus ABDUL KHUDDUS (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 29-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f 
f 
> 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
ABDUL KHUDDUS (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 
[TARUNCHATTERJEEANDDALVEERBHANDARI,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Article 226-Writ petition-Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere C 
with findings of fact arrived at by Special Court under A.P. Land 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-HELD: High Court, in its writ 
jurisdiction under Article 226 may interfere with findings of fact arrived 
at by Special Court only if findings are based on no evidence or based 
on conjectures or surmises and if no reasonable man would, on given D 
facts and circumstances, come to the conclusion reached by the Special 
Court-On facts, findings arrived at by Special Court cannot, by any 
stretch of imagination, be said to be based on no evidence or beset 
with surmises or conjectures and that finding of Special Court on the 
question of title of respondents by way of adverse possession was based 
on consideration of relevant evidence-both oral or documentary-That E 
apart, neither any relevant material was excluded from consideration 
by it nor was any irrelevant material relied upon in recording its 
findings-Besides, since it has been found on facts that respondents 
could neither prove that they acquired title by way of adverse 
possession in respect of Schedule Land nor could it be proved that F 
Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society, it cannot be ruled out 
that land would only belong to State which was grabbed by 
respondents-It may also be placed on record that High Court, while 
reversing the findings of Special Court could also not come to a 
conclusion of fact that respondents perfected their title in respect of G 
Schedule Land by adverse possession or that Schedule Land belonged 
to Gandhi Hill Society-It was not open to High Court, in exercise of 
its writ jurisdiction, to set aside findings of fact arrived at by Special 
Court which were based on sound consideration of materials on 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A record-Order of High Court is set aside-However, since respondents 
have raised construction on Schedule Land and Special Courl has 
directed payment of compensation so that title of respondents in respect 
of Schedule Land is perfected, respondents would pay the amount as 
directed by Special Court and in the event, respondents/ailed to deposit 
~ 
\ 
B the said amount, application filed by appellant before Special Court 
( 
shall stand allowed and it would be open to appellant to recover 
· 
c 
Schedule Land in accordance with law. 
Kanda Lashmana Bapuji v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 
[2002) 3 sec 258, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7360 of 
2000. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.10.1998 of the High 
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 6452/ 
D 1995. 
E 
H.S. Gururaja Rao, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla 
and T.V. George for the Appellant. 
B. Sunita Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
' 
1. This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 13th 
F of October, 1998 of the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad in W.P. No. 6452of1995, whereby the Division Bench of 
the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents and 
set aside the order dated 9th of June, 1994 passed by the Special Court 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at 
G Hyderabad (for short "the Special Court"). 
H 
2. The only question that needs to be decided in this appeal is, "Can 
,_· 
the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
Constitution, set aside a finding of fact arrived at by the Special Court, 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for 
J 
) 
-I 
I 
STATEv.ABDULKHUDDUS(DEAD)BYLRS. 
711 
short "the Act'') when such finding of fact of the Special Court was made A 
on consideration of the evidence on record and could not be said to be 
perverse or arbitrary.?" 
3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that 
the appellant, the State of Andhra Pradesh, filed an application under the B 
Act against the respondents in the Special Court alleging, inter alia, that 
the 1st respondent was in occupation of 470 sq. yards ofland in Ward 
No. 5, Block No. 1, Vijaywada out of which 220 sq. yards situated in 
N.T.S. No. 26 correlated to old N.T.S. No. 17/1-A/1-A ofVijaywada 
tow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.