STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P.V. HANUMANTHA RAO (D) THR. LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 14-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
P.V. HANUMANTHA RAO (D) THR. LRS. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 14, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
. 
-
Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-Judicial review-
Jurisdiction of High Court-Scope of-Case of land grabbing-Lower 
court overlooking material evidence and circumstances-No appeal provided 
C for against order of the lower court-Held, High Court can look into 
evidence to see if the court below has ignored vital evidence-Andhra 
Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Section 2(d). 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Section 
D 2(d)-Land grabbing-Proof of-Mere bona fide claim to land accupied 
not sufficient-Burden on the occupant to prove lawful title. 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 7 
and 8-Setting up of Special Court and exclusion of jurisdiction of regular 
civil courts-Effect of-Held, provisions should be construed strict!y-
E Interpretation of Statutes. 
The appellant filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration 
that certain land occupied by the respondents was government land. 
After coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing 
F (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and constitution of Special Court under the 
said Act, the suit was transferred to the Special Court. 
The case of the respondents was that the land belonged to the 
erstwhile ruler ofNizam State and had been granted to their predecessor-
in-title as 'Muntakhab' or 'loam'. After passing of the loam Abolition 
G Act, the predecessor-in-title had filed a petition before the Revenue 
Officer for grant of occupancy rights under the Act, which was allowed 
in his favour. The Collector reversed the order in appeal. The Board 
of Revenue allowed the review petition filed against the order of the 
Collector, holding that the land was granted as 'mafi-inam' to t!he 
H predecessor-in-title of the respondents. The order of the Board of 
736 
.. 
STATE v. P.V. HANUMANTHA RAO 
737 
Revenue was not challenged by the appellant. The respondents also A 
filed a writ petition for directing the authorities to implement the order 
of the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the High Court. 
The Special Court declared the respondents as land grabbers 
holding, inter alia that (a) the land in occupation of the respondents B 
was not shown as a separate survey number in the revenue records; 
(b) 'lnam' was not entered in any revenue records; (c) the 'muntakhab' 
was not genuine and valid and the Collector had found it to be not 
proved. 
The respondents filed a writ petition against the order of the C 
Special Court. The High Court summoned the original file and after 
considering it, held that there was evidence of existence of grant by 
'Muntakhab' and reliance placed by the Special Court on the order 
of the Collector was erroneous as the order had been set aside by the 
Board of Revenue. The High Court also held that in holding that the D 
revenue records did not show entries in favour of the grantee, the 
Special Court erred and overlooked the entries in pahani patrikas, 
which showed that the land was granted as 'loam' to the predecessor-
in-title of the respondents. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents 
had been litigating to get his name mutated in the revenue record. The E 
High Court allowed the writ petition in favour of the respondents. 
In appeal before the Court, the appellant contended that the High 
Court had exceeded its writ jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction in 
upsetting the judgment of the Special Court. (755-A] 
F 
2.1. The remedy of writ petition available in the High Court is not 
against the 'decision' of the subordinate court, tribunal or authority G 
but it is against the 'decision making process'. In the 'decision making 
process', if the court, tribunal or authority deciding the case, has 
ignored vital evidence and thereby arrived at erroneous conclusion or 
has misconstrued the provisions of the relevant Act or misunderstood 
the scope of its jurisdiction, the constitutional power of the High Court H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked 
to set right such error and prevent gross injustice to the party 
complaining. This Court has recognised the right of the Hi~:h Court 
to interfere in orders of subordinate courts and tribuna

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.