LexV. S. R. MOHAN RAO versus K. S. R. MURTHY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 773 : 2025 INSC 708 V. S. R. Mohan Rao v. K. S. R. Murthy & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6879 of 2025) 15 May 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is a ‘land grabber’ under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Headnotes† Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – ss.2(d), (e) – ‘Land grabbing’; ‘Land grabber’ – Case of the applicant (predecessors-in-interest of the respondents) before the Special Court was that the appellant was in occupation of a portion of the land belonging to the applicant forming part of survey no.9 whereas the sale deed produced by the appellant showed his property to be in survey no.10 – Appellant was held to be a ‘land grabber’, eviction directed: Held: The term ‘land grabbing’ is employed in the statute conferring on it both a narrow and broad connotation – The broader meaning being of taking away unauthorisedly, greedily or unfairly and the narrow meaning being of snatching forcibly, violently or by unscrupulous means – It cannot be said that there should necessarily be criminality insofar as the encroachment or trespass carried out – The mens rea or intention required is only of illegally taking possession of land, through unlawful or arbitrary means, by oneself or through others, for creation of third party rights, carrying out constructions or use and occupation unauthorisedly – Undisputedly, the appellant had purchased land in survey no.10 – Applicant proved her possession by virtue of the title deed and also took out a Commission which identified the property in the possession of the appellant to be clearly in survey no.9 and not survey no.10 – Thus, the survey numbers in the sale deed produced by the applicant and the appellant, as also the * Author 774 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports failed attempts of the appellant to obtain an injunction against the applicant and the Municipality; in suits wherein the claim raised was against the very same property, together establish the allegation of land grabbing – Impugned judgment of High Court not interfered with. [Paras 7, 16, 17]. Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – s.10 – Ownership of the land, burden of proof – Shifting of onus – Discussed. [Para 14] Case Law Cited Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. [2002] 1 SCR 651 : (2002) 3 SCC 258 – relied on. List of Acts Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. List of Keywords Land grabber; Land grabbing; ‘Grab’; Mens rea; Intention; Criminality; Encroachment; Trespass; Encroached into the property; Possession proved; Title deed; Adverse possession; Principle of adverse possession; Injunction; Prima facie proof; Taking away unauthorisedly, greedily or unfairly; Snatching forcibly, violently or by unscrupulous means; Illegally taking possession of land; Vendors; Ownership of the land; Initial burden; Burden of proof; Shifting of onus; Presumption; Special Court. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6879 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 73 of 2007 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Sr. Adv., Arun Kumar Nagar, Sudhir Naagar, Ms. Rajshree Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: P.V. Yogeswaran, Y. Lokesh, Bibek Tripathi, Arun Singh, Guneswaran Pv, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay. [2025] 5 S.C.R. 775 V. S. R. Mohan Rao v. K. S. R. Murthy & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved with the fact that he has been accused and termed to be a ‘land grabber’ without due cause and directed to be evicted from the property which he duly acquired under a sale deed, wherein he had been residing from the date of purchase; that is from 27.03.1997. The applicant before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act1 was concerned with 252 square yards of land in occupation of the appellant, which the applicant asserted, was a clear case of land grabbing, of a portion of the land belonging to the applicant admeasuring 555 square yards forming part of survey no. 9 of Saroornagar Village, Ranga Reddy District; which she purchased under a registered sale deed dated 01.01.1965. 3. Smt. Madhvi Diwan, learned Senior Counsel argued that the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act could not have been invoked against th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.