Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 385 (TS)

Yunus Khan v. Bandari Bhagwandlu

2025-04-22

P.SREE SUDHA, T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) Since the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 24-08-2017 passed in LGOP Nos.3 and 4 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Special Tribunal for A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 3. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for respondent in both the Writ Petitions, and perused the record. 4. The petitioner herein is respondent in the aforesaid LGOPs. 5. The case of the petitioner as pleaded in defence before the Tribunal is that one Ambu Bai was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.2/A of Adilabad; that the aforesaid land was purchased by one Laxmaiah and Tajuddin in the year 1974; that the said Laxmaiah and Tajuddin had divided the land into 80 plots by making a layout; and that Tajuddin had made an oral gift in respect of plot Nos.52 and 53 admeasuring 200 sq. yds in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985. 6. It is the further case of petitioner that upon Tajuddin making oral gift in favour of petitioner and being put in possession of the subject plots, he had constructed a small hut and living therein. 7. Petitioner contended that though the respondents herein had claimed to be the owners of the subject plots and the same having been encroached by the petitioner herein, claiming that the subject land being a Government land regularized in favour of one Bheem Rao and the said Bheem Rao having sold the land in favour of respondent’s vendor viz., L.Ravinder Reddy, who in turn sold to the respondents herein, the entire case of the respondents is based on the Xerox copy of the alleged regularization proceedings and the location sketch marked as Ex.A-6. 8. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had accepted the case of respondents of they having proved prima facie title to the subject property solely on the basis of report of the Tahsildar, which cannot be taken as conclusive, more so when it does not give the background as to who is the initial owner of the subject plots viz., Government and Bheem Rao encroaching on to the Government land and the same being regularized in favour of Bheem Rao, who in turn sold the same to L.Ravinder Reddy, who thereafter had executed a sale deed in favour of respondents herein. 9. Petitioner would further contend that as per Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), the initial burden is required to be discharged by the applicant approaching the Tribunal and respondents herein being the applicants did not discharge the initial burden cast on them by establishing the flow of their title to the subject plots by examining Bheem Rao, who had claimed the subject plots having been regularized in his favour by the Government after having been encroached by him. 10. It is further contended by the petitioner that since the claim of the respondents that initially the subject plots belonged to Government is not established, the claim of the respondents of they having purchased the subject plots and being put in possession of the same also cannot be accepted; and that the respondents herein except placing reliance on Xerox copy of Ex.A-5, which has been marked subject to objection, has not established his title to the subject plots for the petitioner to be declared as land grabber. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that though the respondents are claiming to have purchased the subject plots from L.Ravinder Reddy, who in turn had purchased the same from Bheem Rao under ExA-5, possession of the subject plots have not been delivered thereunder. 12. It is further contended that even if the petitioner has not proved the oral gift made by Tajuddin in his favour, no case can be made against petitioner as it is not for the respondents to claim that Tajuddin did not have any right to make oral gift of the subject plots being the joint property of Laxmaiah and Tajuddin. 13. 13. Petitioner further contends that as per Mohammedan Law, an oral gift is recognized as valid, subject to fulfilling the three conditions viz., (i) offer (ii) acceptance and (iii) possession, and since Tajuddin made an offer, which was accepted to by the petitioner, upon which possession having been delivered to the petitioner herein in the year 1985 itself and the petitioner having constructed a small hut therein, the oral gift in respect of the subject plots is valid, and it is not open for the respondents to assail the action of Tajuddin in making the oral gift in favour of the petitioner. 14. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective while coming to conclusion and holding the petitioner as land grabber of the petition schedule plots viz., plot Nos.52 and 53 admeasuring 200 sq. yards under the Act. 15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, by drawing the attention of the Court to the findings recorded in the impugned orders, would contend that while petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject plots from the year 1985 presumably under the alleged oral gift, however, did not prove his possession of the subject plots for the oral gift deed to be considered as having been acted upon. 16. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the report of the Tahsildar dated 28-10-2010 conclusively shows that subject plots admeasuring 200 sq. yards in Sy.No.2/A of Dasnapur village stands in the name of respondents as owners and that the petitioner herein having dispossessed the respondents in February, 2010. 17. Respondents further contend that contrary to the claim of the petitioner of he being put in possession of the subject plots in the year 1985 under oral gift by Tajuddin and he having put up a hut therein, the report of the Tahsildar shows erection of a temporary shed with GI sheet roof. 18. 17. Respondents further contend that contrary to the claim of the petitioner of he being put in possession of the subject plots in the year 1985 under oral gift by Tajuddin and he having put up a hut therein, the report of the Tahsildar shows erection of a temporary shed with GI sheet roof. 18. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that though they had only filed Xerox copy of the regularization proceedings issued by the Revenue authorities regularizing the plots of land in favour of Bheema Rao and also location sketch of the subject plots, the objection of the petitioner for marking the aforesaid documents was negatived on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, which confirmed that the subject plots, at least in the year 2010, stood in the name of respondents apart from respondents having purchased the subject plots under a registered sale deed dated 29-06-2009 from L.Ravinder Reddy, who in turn purchased the subject plots from Bheem Rao on 12-01-2009. 19. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner except claiming that Laxmaiah and Tajuddin having purchased the land from one Ambu Bai in the year 1974 and claiming to have made a layout consisting of 80 plots, did not produce any piece of evidence to substantiate the aforesaid claim/assertion much less for Tajuddin to make an oral gift of plot Nos.52 and 53 in favour of petitioner after having fallen to his share. 20. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that petitioner having put up a case of Tajuddin having jointly purchased the property along with Laxmaiah from Ammu Bai in the year 1974, cannot gift the property in the year 1982 exclusively as if belonging to him and that the claim of oral gift was only set up in order to claim title to the subject property. 21. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner did not choose to substantiate the claim of oral gift by examining Tajuddin, since no relationship has been stated for Tajuddin to make the oral gift in favour of the petitioner. 22. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that a perusal of Ex.A-6 would substantiate the claim of respondents as to the location of land, and thus, the respondents have established his title and the same cannot be called in question. 22. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that a perusal of Ex.A-6 would substantiate the claim of respondents as to the location of land, and thus, the respondents have established his title and the same cannot be called in question. 23. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the report of Tahsildar is only for taking cognizance of the application made and cannot be the basis to decide the application. 24. Further, it is also contended in reply that in the absence of partition between Tajuddin and Laxmaiah, for Tajuddin to make an oral gift in favour of the petitioner is not open to challenge by the respondents herein. 25. In support of the contentions on behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed on the decisions in Abdul Khuddus & Ors Vs. State of A.P. & Anr , [ 1998(6) ALD 246 (DB)] , State of A.P. Vs. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (Dead) through LRs & another , [ (2003) 10 SCC 121 ] , Gouni Satya Reddi Vs. Govt. of A.P. & others , [ (2004) 7 SCC 398 ] , Konda Lakshman Bapuji Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Others , [ (2002) 3 SCC 258 ] and P.Mohan Vs. Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and another , [ 2007(6) ALD 280 (DB)] 26. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. 27. Before considering the submissions made on either side, it is necessary to note the scope of Writ Petitions filed against the orders of the Tribunal. 28. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y.Jangamma & Others Vs. Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act & another , 2009 (12) APCK 0013 : Order dated 31-12-2009 passed in W.P.No.4095 of 2000 by referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Konda Lakshman Bapuji (supra), also State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (supra) and A.P.Housing Board Vs. Mohammad Sadatullah & Others , Order of Supreme Court dated 13-04-2007 in Appeal (Civil) No.3942 of 2002 had held that the Writ Petition filed against the orders of Special Court cannot be considered as an appeal. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (supra) and A.P.Housing Board Vs. Mohammad Sadatullah & Others , Order of Supreme Court dated 13-04-2007 in Appeal (Civil) No.3942 of 2002 had held that the Writ Petition filed against the orders of Special Court cannot be considered as an appeal. The Division Bench further held that judicial review is permissible to a limited extent when (i) the relevant material is excluded and irrelevant material is concerned (ii) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and (iii) a grave injustice or gross violation of justice is occasioned thereby. The Division Bench, by referring to the decision in K.Sarada Bai & another Vs. Smt.Shamshunnisa & others , [2008(2) SCC 49] held that when the order of the Special Court is passed on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Writ Court cannot interfere with the said order. 29. Though, on behalf of the petitioner elaborate submissions are made assailing the order of the Tribunal on various grounds, the contentions urged, however do not fall within the three parameters as detailed in the decision of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y.Jangamma (supra) for this Court to consider the same in the present writ petition. 30. Further, on behalf of the petitioner it was contended that one Laxmaiah and Tajuddin having purchased the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 from Smt.Ambu Bai in the year 1974 and the said two people having divided the land into 80 plots, the appendix of evidence annexed to the order of the Tribunal would show that the petitioner herein did not choose to mark any documents or even the documents marked in LGOP No.4 of 2000 does not support the claim of the petitioner of one Tajuddin and Laxmaiah having purchased the land from Smt.Ambu Bai in the year 1974. On the other hand, respondents herein in the cross-examination by petitioner had marked the pahani patrika of the year 1979-80 showing the name of Smt.Ambu Bai as owner of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.2/A1 and recording the name of one ‘Rajesham Bentlar Style’ being recorded as being in possession of the land. 31. On the other hand, respondents herein in the cross-examination by petitioner had marked the pahani patrika of the year 1979-80 showing the name of Smt.Ambu Bai as owner of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.2/A1 and recording the name of one ‘Rajesham Bentlar Style’ being recorded as being in possession of the land. 31. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it was contended that since Laxmaiah and Tajuddin intended to convert the land into plots for sale, they immediately did not get it registered in their names and only after getting necessary approvals and converting the land into plots, they got executed sale deeds in favour of the intending purchasers of the plots, it is to be noted that Pahani Patrika of the year 1979-80 also records the name of Smt.Ambu Bai as owner of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.2/A1. 32. Further, on behalf of petitioner though it is contended that Tajuddin having made an oral gift in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985, which mode of gift is permitted under Mahommadan Law, it is settled position of law that while an oral gift under Mahommadan law is permitted, however in order to be considered as valid gift, three essential elements are necessary to make the oral gift valid. They are (a) gift has to be necessarily declared by the person giving the gift i.e. donor; (ii) such a gift has to be accepted either impliedly or explicitly by or on behalf of the donee, and (iii) apart from declaration and acceptance, there is also a requirement of delivery of possession for a gift to be valid. (See: Mansoor Saheb Vs. Salima , [2024 SCC Online SC 3809)] ) 33. Further, in the aforesaid decision, it was also held that the requirements for validity of a gift deed are sequential i.e. one must follow the other viz., declaration by donor followed by acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession in favour of the donee and thus, all the three conditions must be met. 34. Though, the petitioner claims of Tajuddin affecting oral gift in his favour, he having made construction of hut in the said land and residing therein, no evidence has been placed on record to appreciate the aforesaid submission. 34. Though, the petitioner claims of Tajuddin affecting oral gift in his favour, he having made construction of hut in the said land and residing therein, no evidence has been placed on record to appreciate the aforesaid submission. Mere claim of petitioner being in possession, be it constructive or permissive possession, without any material document, the claim of the petitioner to the said effect has to fail. 35. On the other hand, the respondents in support of their claim to the subject land had not only marked the registered sale deed executed by one L.Ravinder Reddy in their favour, but also marked the sale deed dated 12-01-2009 executed by Bheem Rao executed in favour of L.Ravinder Reddy. 36. The respondents, in addition to the marking of registered sale deed, had also marked copy of the patta certificate dated 30-01-1990 issued by the Tahsildar in respect of plot No.52 and 53 in Sy.No.2/A1 of Dasnapur village whereby the land encroached by respondents’ predecessor in title viz., Bheem Rao has been regularized in his favour. Thus, the respondents are claiming title to the subject land which has been regularized in favour of Bheem Rao, who in turn sold the same to L.Ravinder Reddy from whom the respondents had purchased land under sale deed. 37. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the Tribunal had erred in placing reliance on the verification report of the Tahsildar to accept the case of respondents, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal while taking note of the regularization of encroachment in favour of Bheem Rao and also the subsequent sale deed executed by him favour of L.Ravinder Reddy, who in turn sold the subject plots to respondents, had only referred to the report whereby it is stated that the name of respondents finds mention in the records as owner. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the verification report, which is only intended for the purpose of taking cognizance, cannot be accepted as a valid contention for being accepted by this Court. 38. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the verification report, which is only intended for the purpose of taking cognizance, cannot be accepted as a valid contention for being accepted by this Court. 38. Further, it is also to be noted that since the petitioner is claiming the subject plots under an oral gift and when the said claim is tested against a registered sale deed under which the respondents are claiming the subject plots, the petitioner is required to establish of fulfilling the three essential conditions of oral gift, including having lawful possession of land being claimed under oral gift. Failing to establish, such lawful possession would result in registered document taking precedence over the claim of oral gift [ See : Mansoor Saheb (supra) ]. 39. Though, a submission is also made on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner being in possession of the subject plots on making an oral gift by Tajuddin in the year 1985 and thus, the petitioner having mastered his title by way of adverse possession, it is settled law that claim of adverse possession can only be against the actual owner of the property. Since, the petitioner claims of being put in possession by virtue of oral gift deed executed by one Tajuddin, the petitioner cannot claim of being any adverse possession against the real owner i.e. respondents. 40. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner herein while claiming Tajuddin to be joint owner of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 along with Laxmaiah, could not have made an oral gift of the land of which he is only a co-owner without bringing on record any material to show how he possessed the subject plots exclusively for him to make an oral gift for it to be considered as a valid offer, for this Court to appreciate the said contention and hold that the Tribunal having erred in holding the petitioner to be a land grabber. 41. 41. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in Abdul Khuddus (supra) to contend that the respondents had failed to discharge the initial burden cast on him by proving that the land belong to him has been grabbed by the petitioner, as noted herein above, the respondents, who is the applicant before the Tribunal had substantiated his claim to the subject land under a registered sale deed. Further, upon the respondents/complainants purchasing the subject plots of land, his name also having been entered in the records, the respondents/complainants had discharged his initial burden cast on him for the Tribunal to take cognizance of the complaint for bring proceeded with. 42. The other decision on which reliance placed by the petitioner is in the case of P.V.Hanuantha Rao (Dead) (supra), wherein the Supreme Court had held that the High Court in Writ jurisdiction is justified in examining the documents and upsetting the judgment of the Special Court, it is to be noted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision had categorically observed that High Court in Writ jurisdiction would be justified in examining the documents of title which were either rejected or overlooked by the Special Court. In the facts of the case, as noted above, the petitioner herein did not mark even a single document. Thus, the case relied upon by the petitioner is of little assistance to advance his case. 43. The other decision on which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner is the case of Konda Lakshman Bapuji (supra). A reading of the aforesaid decision would show that the Hon’ble Apex Court having held that a person claiming the subject land should succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot take advantage of the defects in title of others to the land in dispute. In the facts of the present case, as noted above, the petitioner except claiming the subject land under oral gift made by Tajuddin, had failed to establish either the title of Tajuddin to the said property for him to make an oral gift in his favour, except seeking to dispute the title of the respondents herein on the basis of the report of Tahsildar without recording the background as to who is the real owner and as to the subsequent transfers affected. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that since, the petitioner is claiming the subject plots under oral gift deed made by Tajuddin, petitioner did not choose to examine the said Tajuddin, who stated to have made the oral gift of the subject land in order to establish his title to the subject lands. Thus, the aforesaid decision relied upon by the petitioner would not advance his case. 44. The next decision on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is P.Mohan (supra). By placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had placed reliance on the verification report submitted by the Tahsildar, which is only intended for the purpose of taking cognizance. As noted herein above, the respondents while approaching the Tribunal had initially based their case on the sale deed executed in their favour and upon the respondents filing the applications, the Tribunal having called for report in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules, which only corroborated the claim of respondents, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal is entirely based on the verification report of the Tahsildar. Thus, the aforesaid decision would not advance the case of the petitioner any further. 45. Insofar as reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in Gouni Satya Reddi V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh , [ (2004) 7 SCC 398 ] , it is to be noted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision has been impliedly overruled by the Apex Court in the decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer V/s. Goundla Venkaiah , [ (2010) 2 SCC 461 ] 46. Having regard to the discussion made as above, and considered from any angle, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said as having been passed either excluding the relevant material or without considering the relevant material or an error manifest on the face of the proceedings for this Court to set aside the said orders. 47. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petitions are devoid of merit, and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 48. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.