V. LAXMINARASAMMA versus A. YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1040 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 3 S.C.R. 1040 
A 
V. LAXMINARASAMMA 
-{c_ • 
' 
v. 
A. YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1849 of 2002) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
(S.B. SINHA, ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y AND R.M. 
LODHA, JJ.] 
+ 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: 
c 
Special Tribunal and/or Special Court constituted under 
the Act - Determination of question of adverse possession -
Wh~ther would come within the purview of its jurisdiction - Two 
conflicting decisions of Division Benches of Supreme Court 
D - On being referred to it a three Judge Bench Held: The 
Trib1unal/Special Court constituted under the Act has the 
requisite jurisdiction to go into the question of adverse 
possession. 
E 
In view of conflict of decisions of two Division 
Benches of the Supreme Court in Konda Lakshmana 
Bapuji (2002) 3 SCC 258 and N. Srinivasa Rao (2006) 4 SCC 
214, the determination of a question of adverse 
possession whether would come within the purview of 
F the jurisdiction of Special Tribunal and/or Special Court 
constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing 
(Prohibition) Act, 1982, was referred to the three Judge 
Bench. 
Answering the reference, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal/Special Court constituted 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) 
Act, 1982 has the requisite jurisdiction to go into the 
question of adverse possession. [Para 19] [1058-G-H] 
H 
1040 
V. LAXMINARASAMMA v. A. YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS. 
1041 
r-.... 
1.2. Kanda Lakshmana Bapuji lays down the correct A 
law and N. Srinivasa Rao does not. [Para 22) [1059-F] 
Kanda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of Andhra 
Pradesh & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 258 and Mahalaxmi Motors 
Ltd. v. Manda/ Revenue Officer and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 714, 
8 
affirmed. 
""+ 
N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 214, 
overruled. 
c 
2.1. Jurisdiction is exercised by the Tribunal and/or 
Special Court upon arriving at a satisfaction in regard to 
existence of jurisdictional fact. Even in terms of Article 65 
of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 in 
.. 
the event, the plaintiff proves his title, the burden of proof D 
t 
would be on the defendant to show that he has acquired 
title by adverse possession. [Para 15] [1055-C-D] 
2.2. The defendant in all circumstances, would be 
entitled to prove that he is lawfully entitled to possess the 
E 
land. No law says that if a new forum is created by a 
a 
special statute in terms whereof the jurisdiction of the 
4 
civil court becomes barred, the Tribunal constituted 
.. 
thereunder must be a substitute for a civil court, not only 
with regard to all its powers but also with all its 
F 
' 
deficiencies. If the Special Act satisfies substantive due 
~ 
process, the same would satisfy the legal requirements. 
[Para 16) [1055-E-F) 
Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City 
of Bombay AIR 19E1 SC 469; Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. 
G 
~ 
Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 620 
and Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam and Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 
308, relied c.n. 
H 
1042 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
A.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Sadatullah & Ors. (2007) 
-f -. 
6 sec 566, referred to. 
3.Acquisition of an indefeasible title by. prescription 
is a creation of statute. Section 27 of the Limitation Act 
B provides for extinction of a title of the owner of the land 
and vesting thereof in a person who has acquired the 
same by adverse possession. The plea of adverse 
~ 
f?ossession, however, must expressly be raised and 
+ 
~stablished. [Para 17] [1055-F-H] 
c 
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna 
Rao and Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 134, held inapplicable. 
State of A.P. v. Pramee/a Modi (2006) 13 SCC 147, 
referred to. 
...__ 
D 
4. It is one thing to say that a summary proceeding 
1 
cannot be resorted to when a noticee resists a bona fide 
dispute involving complicated questions of title and his 
right to remain in possession of the land but it is another 
E thing to say that although a Special Court and/or a 
I 
Tribunal which has all the powers of a civil court would 
not be entitled to enter into such a contention. [Para 21] 
"'
[1059-E-F] 
\ 
.. 
Case Law Reference: 
F 
,, 
(2002) 3 sec 258 
affirmed 
Para 1 
(2006) 4 sec 214 
overruled 
Para 1 
(2001) 6 sec 566 
referred to 
Para 8 
G 
AIR 1951 SC 469 
relied on 
Para 14 
• 
(2006) 3 sec 620 
relied on 
Para 14 
(2007) 14 sec 3oa 
relied on 
Para 15 
H 
V. LAXMINARASAMMA v. A.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.