The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, ruling that the appellant unlawfully occupied land in Survey No. 9 despite holding a deed for Survey No. 10. The Court emphasized that land grabbing requires illegal possession with intent, distinct from mere trespass, and affirmed the Special Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes summarily. The appellant’s claim of adverse possession failed due to lack of hostile animus and proof of long-standing occupation. The judgment reinforced the strict interpretation of land grabbing under the Act, aligning with precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002).
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved a dispute over 252 square yards of land in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar Village, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent (original applicant) claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 01.01.1965, asserting that the appellant (V.S.R. Mohan Rao) had illegally occupied the land. The appellant, however, argued that he purchased the property through a registered sale deed (27.03.1997) and had been residing there in a double-storied building, claiming his vendors derived title from a Housing Society (11th respondent) linked to Survey No. 10.
A Court-appointed Survey Commissioner confirmed the encroachment, finding the disputed land fell under Survey No. 9, not Survey No. 10 as per the appellant’s deed. The Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act ruled against the appellant, noting his failed civil suits—one dismissed against the respondent and another withdrawn when the respondent sought impleadment. The High Court upheld the eviction, rejecting the appellant’s adverse possession plea due to insufficient proof of hostile possession.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the Land Grabbing Act required criminal intent (mens rea), which was absent. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that illegal occupation with intent suffices under the Act, and upheld the eviction order, stressing the summary nature of proceedings under the statute.
Procedural History:
The case originated before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, where the respondent filed an application alleging illegal occupation by the appellant. The Special Court, after examining evidence—including a Survey Commissioner’s report confirming encroachment—ordered the appellant’s eviction, holding the occupation unlawful. The appellant challenged this before the Telangana High Court, which upheld the Special Court’s decision, rejecting claims of adverse possession and emphasizing discrepancies in the appellant’s title documents.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP), arguing that the Land Grabbing Act was misapplied, as his possession lacked criminal intent. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the lower courts. It ruled that the summary proceedings under the Act were valid, and the appellant’s failure to prove lawful entitlement justified eviction. The Court also clarified that mens rea in land grabbing pertains to illegal intent, not criminality, aligning with its precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002). The eviction order was thus upheld, concluding the litigation.
READ ALSO : Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. Firstly, it clarified that the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 applies not only to forcible occupation but also to unlawful possession with intent, even without overt criminality. The Court emphasized that mens rea under the Act refers to the intention to illegally occupy land, not necessarily criminal misconduct.
The Bench upheld the Special Court’s jurisdiction, noting its authority to conduct summary proceedings while ensuring due process. It observed that the Survey Commissioner’s report conclusively proved the appellant’s occupation of Survey No. 9, contrary to his claim of owning land in Survey No. 10. The Court dismissed the adverse possession argument, stating the appellant failed to demonstrate hostile possession for the statutory period.
Citing Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (2002), the judgment reinforced that land grabbing includes unauthorized occupation through unfair means, and the burden shifts to the alleged grabber once prima facie ownership is established. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s challenge to the summary eviction process, ruling it a valid mechanism to curb illegal land occupation.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order against the appellant under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The Court affirmed that the appellant had illegally occupied the disputed land in Survey No. 9, despite holding documents for Survey No. 10, as conclusively proven by the Survey Commissioner’s report. It rejected the appellant’s claim of adverse possession, noting a lack of evidence to establish hostile animus or continuous possession for the statutory period.
The judgment reinforced that land grabbing under the Act encompasses unauthorized occupation with intent, even without overt criminality, aligning with its earlier ruling in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (2002). The Court upheld the summary eviction process, emphasizing the Special Court’s authority to expedite such disputes. No costs were awarded, and all pending applications, if any, were disposed of. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran concurred, concluding that the appellant’s occupation was unlawful and the eviction justified.
Case Details:
Case Title:V.S.R. Mohan Rao vs. K.S.R. Murthy & Ors. Citation:(2025) INSC 708 Appeal Number: (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12570 of 2025) Date of Judgment:May 15, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Download The Judgement Here