{"id":188386,"date":"2006-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006"},"modified":"2018-12-13T13:04:25","modified_gmt":"2018-12-13T07:34:25","slug":"n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4527-4528 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nN. Srinivasa Rao\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSpl. Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. Singh & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4534-4535\/1999
\nWITH
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.4529-4532\/1999
\nAND
\nCONT. PETN ) Nos.89-92\/2000 of in CA Nos.4534-35\/99 & 4527-28\/99<\/p>\n
ALTAMAS  KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tApplications for substitution  are allowed.
\n\tAll these appeals arising out of leave granted involve
\ncommon questions of fact  and  law and  have, therefore, been
\ntaken up for hearing and disposal together.
\nOne Kaneez  Fatima Begum was the former owner of  the
\nlands covered by Survey No. 65 to 74 of Yousufguda village
\ngoverned by the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land
\nAct, 1950.  One Uppari Ramaiah was her tenant in respect of
\nthe said  lands.  From the materials on record, it appears  that
\nthe said Uppari Ramaiah purchased  14 acres and 6 guntas of
\nland from Kaneez Fatima Begum under a sale deed dated 1st
\nMay, 1961 for a consideration  of Rs.13,000\/- and obtained a
\ncertificate in respect thereof under Section 38E of the Andhra
\nPradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands
\nAct, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Tenancy Act of 1950”)
\nfrom the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, West.   Prior
\nto execution  of the said deed,  Uppari Ramaiah is purported
\nto have sold an  extent of 20,086 square yards from out of the
\ntotal area measuring 14 acres   and  6 guntas to one Mir
\nRiyasat Ali by a sale deed dated 8th February, 1961.  Out of
\nthe said 20,086 square yards,  the  said Mir Riyasat Ali sold
\n8,866 square yards to Smt. P. Neelakanteswaramma and to
\none  Chandra Ramalingaiah  by a sale deed dated 21st
\nNovember, 1961.  Their names were duly mutated in the
\nTown Survey Registers and in the Revenue Records.  On the
\ndeath of Chandra Ramalingaiah  on 7th February, 1973, his
\nshare in the land devolved on his legal heirs, namely, his
\nwidow, Chandra Suryamba, and  his two daughters, C. Raja
\nKumari and P. Sandhya Kumari and son Chandra
\nRamakoteswar Rao.    Smt. Neelakanteswaramma and the
\nwidow of Chandra Ramalingaiah  entered into an agreement
\nfor  sale with Bhagyalakshmi  Cooperative Housing  Society,
\nbut in view of the Government Order R.T. No.3591 dated 1st
\nDecember, 1975 and Government Order M.S. No.189 dated
\n17th January, 1976, they could not execute the sale deeds in
\nfavour  of the  Housing Society.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to P. Neelakanteswaramma and the heirs of
\nChandra Ramalingaiah, since the legal heirs of Uppari
\nRamaiah conspired to grab the lands which had been
\nconveyed in their favour by Mir Riyasat Ali, they were
\nconstrained to file a complaint in the Special Court of A.P.
\nLand Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,
\nbeing  L.G.C. No.32\/1989.  It was alleged in the complaint
\nthat  the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, who were made respondent
\nNos. 1 to 10 in the complaint, executed three General  Powers
\nof Attorney in favour  of one N. Srinivasa Rao, who was made
\nthe respondent No.11.  In the said Powers of Attorney, the
\nfacts regarding transfer of the lands by Uppari Ramaiah  in
\nfavour of Mir Riayasat Ali and the subsequent transfer  by Mir
\nRiyasat Ali in favour of  P. Neelakanteswarama and the
\npredecessor-in-interest of the applicant  nos.  2 to 5 were
\nsuppressed and the property in dispute  was described as the
\nproperty of Uppari Ramaiah who had purchased the same
\nfrom Kaneez Fatima Begum  and after Uppari Ramaiah’s
\ndeath, it was stated that the lands had devolved on the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 10. as his legal heirs.  By virtue of a
\nGeneral Power of Attorney, the said respondent Nos. 1 to 10
\nauthorised respondent No.11 to convert the schedule property
\ninto plots and to sell  and execute sale deeds in respect
\nthereof in favour of  purchasers.  The respondent Nos. 1 to 10
\nalso executed an Agreement of Sale dated 26th June, 1980,  in
\nfavour of  respondent No.11 in respect of the said lands.
\n\tOn the strength of the said General Power of Attorney
\nand   Agreement of Sale, the respondent No.11 executed 5
\nregistered sale deeds covering a part of  the disputed lands in
\nfavour of  one Ch. Laksminarasamma and five others, who
\nwere also impleaded  as respondent Nos. 12 to 17 in the
\ncomplaint before the Special Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn receipt of notice of the complaint, the respondent Nos.
\n1 to 12 entered appearance and filed counter affidavits.
\nRespondent Nos. 1 to 10  filed a counter contending that late
\nUppari Ramaiah, the husband of respondent no.1 and the
\nfather of respondent Nos. 2 to 10,  was a  “protected tenant” of
\nSmt. Kaneez Fatima Begum in respect of the disputed lands
\ncovered by Survey Nos. 65 to 74  of Yousufguda village and
\nthat he had purchased the  said lands from Kaneez Fatima
\nBegum  by a registered sale deed dated 1st May, 1961 for a
\nsum of Rs.13,000\/-. It was further contended that the
\napplicants had falsely stated that they had purchased the said
\nlands from  Mir  Riyasat Ali by sale deed dated 21st November,
\n1961.  The lands in question were agricultural lands and were
\nreferred to as such in the revenue records in terms of acres
\nand guntas and the transaction entered into by Mir  Riyasat
\nAli with Uppari Ramaiah was  effected  with the intention of
\navoiding  having to obtain  formal permission from the
\nTahasildar under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950 for
\ntransfer of the said lands.  The specific case made out in the
\ncounter filed by respondent nos. 1 to 10 was that the sale deed
\nexecuted by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riyasat Ali was
\nfraudulent as would be evident from the fact that the same
\nhad been executed even before Uppari Ramaiah acquired full
\ntitle to the properties from Kaneez Fatima Begum by the sale
\ndeed dated 1st May, 1961.  It was also contended that  when
\nthe applicants started interfering with the possession of the
\nrespondents over the lands in question, they had filed
\nO.S.No.926\/1981 which was pending before the IVth
\nAdditional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
\n\tUpon noticing   that Uppari Ramaiah and his legal heirs
\nhad joined Mir Riyasat Ali and K. Satyanarayana in  effecting
\nsale  of  some of the lands  in favour of Srinivasa Government
\nEmplyees Co-oerative Housing Society  Limited by the  Deed of
\nSale  dated 6th May, 1961(Ext.B-9)  and after referring to other
\nsimilar  transactions entered into by  Mir Riyasat Ali, the
\nlearned Special Judge overruled the objection  that Mir Riyasat
\nAli had not  acquired title to the properties   in question  by
\nvirtue of     the sale deed  executed in his favour by Uppari
\nRamaiah on 8th February, 1961.  Relying on Section 43  of the
\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882, and the decision of this Court
\nin the  case of Ram Pyare  vs. Ram Narain & Ors.,<\/a> reported in
\n(1985) 2 SCC  P.162, the  learned Special Judge held that the
\nsubsequent acquisition of title  by Uppari Ramaiah to the
\nproperty  conveyed to Mir Riyasat Ali  inures to the benefit  of
\nMir Riyasat Ali as the same feeds Uppari Ramaiah’s title to the
\nsaid property.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn addition to the above, the learned Special Judge found
\nMir Riyasat Ali to be in actual physical possession of the
\nproperties since the same was conveyed  to him by  Uppari
\nRamaiah  and since the respondents  had not taken any steps
\nto evict   Mir Riyasat Ali  but  had allowed him to continue in
\npossession  without any  interruption till 1980.  The learned
\nJudge  found that the applicants had acquired title to the
\nproperty by  adverse possession  notwithstanding the mischief
\nof Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe plea taken  by the respondents that the application
\nwas hopelessly time-barred, was also negated by the learned
\nSpecial Judge  on account of  his aforesaid findings.
\n\tOnce the other issues had been decided in favour of  the
\napplicants, the learned Special Judge  held that the burden
\nshifted to the respondents to prove that they were not land
\ngrabbers within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh  Land
\nGrabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982  (hereinafter referred to as
\n”the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982″).   On the basis of the
\nmaterials before him and in particular of the fact that Uppari
\nRammaiah and his sons had joined Mir Riyasat Ali and
\nK.Satyanarayana in the conveyance executed in favour of the
\nCooperative Group Housing Society, the learned Special
\nJudge  came to the conclusion that by their actions it must be
\nheld that  the said respondents were land grabbers.  The
\nlearned Special Judge accordingly proceeded to declare the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 17 before him as land grabbers  within
\nthe  meaning of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982 and directed
\nthat criminal proceedings  be  commenced against them  for
\noffences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act.
\n\tThe heirs  of Uppari Ramaiah filed a writ petition before
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court, being W.P.No.4991\/1990,
\nagainst the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned
\nJudge.  Another writ petition, being W.P.No.4026\/1990, was
\nfiled by N. Srinivasa Rao,  to whom  a General  Power of
\nAttorney had  been given by the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, and
\nsince  they arose  out of a common judgment, they were heard
\ntogether  and disposed of  by a common order dated 11th July,
\n1997.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court reversed the findings of the learned
\nSpecial  Judge  upon holding that the sales effected by Kaneez
\nFatima Begum in favour of Uppari Ramaiah on 1st May, 1961
\n(Ext.A-1) and  the sale  executed by Uppari Ramaiah in favour
\nof Mir Riyasat Ali on 8th February, 1961 (Ext.A-3) were not
\nvalid as they were  hit by Section  47 of the Tenancy Act of
\n1950.  It was held  further  that  in the absence of  a
\nValidation certificate,  transfers if any,  in favour of the others,
\nincluding the applicants before the learned  Special Judge, did
\nnot confer any right or title on them.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court also  held that Section 43 of the Transfer
\nof Property Act would not come to the aid  of the transferee,
\nsince  a transfer in the absence of prior permission or sanction
\nof the Tahsildar  under Section 47 of the Tenancy  Act of 1950
\nwas prohibited.  The High Court, accordingly,  concluded that
\nthe respondent Nos. 1 to 11 before the learned Special Judge
\nwere not  land grabbers and quashed  the order and decree of
\nthe Special Court, Hyderabad, dated  5th March, 1990, upon
\nholding that the same was illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe judgment  and order passed by the Division Bench of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court  allowing the two writ
\napplications is the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 4534-
\n4535\/1999 filed by N. Srinivasa Rao whose writ petition had
\nbeen allowed but with certain observations which according to
\nthe petitioner are contrary to his interest.
\n\tOn the other hand,  Uppari Ramaiah and others filed two
\nReview Petitions, being W.P.M.P.Nos.22810\/1997 and
\n22811\/1997 in the two Writ Petition Nos. 4991\/1990 and
\n4026\/1990, for review of the judgment  dated 11th July, 1997.
\n\tThe petitioner, in his turn, filed a clarification
\napplication, being W.P.M.P. No.24605\/1997, in
\nW.P.No.4026\/1990, on the ground  that  certain observations
\nhad been made by the High Court in its judgment dated 11th
\nJuly, 1997 de hors  the issues involved, which would have the
\neffect of adversely affecting his interests and would stand in
\nhis way in working  out his civil rights in the Civil Court with
\nregard to  his legitimate  proprietary rights.  Uppari Ramaiah
\nand others filed an application in the clarification petition for
\nbeing added as  parties therein since any favourable order
\npassed therein would have the  effect of adversely  affecting
\ntheir interests.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll the said applications  were  taken up for hearing  by
\nthe High Court on 24th October, 1997 and by its order dated
\n21st November, 1997, the High Court dismissed all the said
\napplications.   Civil Appeal Nos. 4527-4528\/1999 have been
\nfiled by the said N. Srinivasa Rao against the said order of the
\nHon’ble High Court dismissing his application for clarification.
\nP. Neelakanteswaramma also challenged  the orders
\npassed by the High Court in  the two writ  applications, in the
\nReview Petition in W.P.No.4991\/1990 and Miscellaneous
\nPetition filed by N. Srinivasa Rao in W.P.No.4026\/1990  in  the
\nfour  Civil Appeals, C.A.Nos. 4529-4532\/1999.  All the
\naforesaid appeals have been taken  up together for  hearing
\nand are being disposed  of by this common judgment.
\nAppearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 4529-
\n4532 of 1999, Mr.  K. Parasaran,  learned senior advocate,
\ntook us through  the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act,
\n1982,  wherein  the expression “land grabbing” has been
\ndefined in Section 2 (e) of the aforesaid Act  as follows:-
\n“2(e) “land grabbing” means every
\nactivity of grabbling of any land (whether
\nbelonging to the Government, a local
\nauthority, a religious or charitable
\ninstitution or endowment, including a
\nwakf, or any other private person) by a
\nperson or group of persons, without any
\nlawful entitlement and with a view to
\nillegally taking possession of such lands,
\nor enter into or create illegal tenancies or
\nlease and licences agreements or any
\nother illegal agreements in respect of
\nsuch lands, or to construct unauthorized
\nstructures thereon for sale or hire, or give
\nsuch lands to any person on rental or
\nlease and licence basis for construction,
\nor use and occupation, of unauthorized
\nstructures; and the term “to grab land”\n<\/p>\n
shall be construed accordingly;”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Parasaran contended that having regard to the
\nmanner in which the heirs of Uppari Rammaiah had at one
\nstage acquiesced  in accepting Mir Riyasat Ali’s title to the
\nlands conveyed to him by their predecessor-in-interest,  their
\nsubsequent  volte face in contending that  Mir Riyasat  Ali had
\nno title to the said properties, which were  subsequently
\nconveyed by him to  P. Neelakanteswaramma and Chandra
\nRamalingaiah, must be held to attract the provisions of  the
\n1982 Act and the penal consequences thereof.
\nIt was then submitted that notwithstanding the fact that
\nthe lands in question had been recorded in the revenue
\nrecords as agricultural lands and Uppari Ramaiah had been
\nrecorded as a “protected tenant”, over the passage of time, the
\nlands comprised in Yousufguda village  came  to be included
\nwithin   Hyderabad Municipality  though  the  revenue records
\npertaining  to  the lands in question had not been rectified to
\nkeep up with the changing times.  Viewed  from such an angle,
\nit could very well be said that  the said lands did not  attract
\nthe provisions of the Tenancy Act of 1950 which  dealt with
\nagricultural lands which were subject to the various
\nrestrictions imposed in the Act itself.\n<\/p>\n
In support of such contention reliance was  placed on a
\ndecision of this Court in the case  of  Motor General Traders
\nAnd Anr. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors., (1984) 1 SCC
\n222, wherein it was held  that an exemption provision which
\nwas initially valid could with the passage of time become
\ndiscriminatory when the nexus  with the object    did not
\ncontinue to survive.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Parasaran also relied on   a decision of this Court  in
\nthe case of  Collector of Bombay vs. Municpal Corporation of
\nthe City of  Bombay And Ors.,<\/a> (1952)  SCR  43, wherein
\nfollowing the  principle in  Ramsden  v. Dyson  (1866)  L.R. 1
\nH.L. 129, the High Court of Bombay held  that the
\nGovernment had lost its right to assess the  land in question
\nby reason of the  equities  arising  in  the facts of the case in
\nfavour of the Corporation which had spent a considerable
\namount in erecting and maintaining   markets on the site in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
Another decision of this Court  on which  a good deal of
\nreliance was placed by Mr. Parasaran was in the case of
\nSarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (Smt.) And Ors. vs. Commissioner
\nof Income Tax, Gujarat,<\/a> 1993 Supp.(4) SCC 707, wherein the
\nassessee-appellants as co-owners of  a piece of land  sold it to
\na Group Housing Society.  A reference under Section 256(1)  of
\nthe Income Tax Act was made to the Gujarat High Court as to
\nwhether that land was   agricultural land within the meaning
\nof Section 2 (14) of  the Income Tax Act for the purpose of  tax
\non capital gains.  The reference was answered by the High
\nCourt in favour of the Revenue and in appeal this Court
\naffirmed the view taken by the  High Court  upon  holding that
\nwhether a land is   agricultural land  or not is essentially  a
\nquestion of fact.  Several tests have been evolved in the
\ndecisions of  the Supreme Court and the High Courts, but all
\nof them are more or  less in the nature of guidelines.  The
\nquestion has to be   answered in each case having regard to
\nthe facts and circumstances of  the  case.   It was observed
\nthat  an inference  has to be drawn on  a cumulative
\nconsideration of all the relevant facts.\n<\/p>\n
It was suggested on behalf of the appellants that   the
\nprovisions  of Section 47 of the  Tenancy Act of 1950, wherein
\nthe previous sanction of the Tahsildar was required to be
\ntaken for permanent alienation of agricultural land, would not
\nbe attracted in the instant case since the  lands were no
\nlonger  agricultural  in nature. The corner-stone of the
\nappellant’s case is based on the perfection of title by Uppari
\nRammaiah by virtue  of the sale deed executed in his favour by
\nKaneez Fatima Begum on 1st May, 1961 which in turn
\nperfected Mir Riyasat Ali’s title in respect of the lands
\nconveyed  to him  by Uppari Ramaiah on 8th February, 1961.
\nThis  also had the effect  of legitimizing  the subsequent
\ntransfers made by Mir Riyasat Ali in favour of P.
\nNeelakanteswaramma and Chandra Ramalingaiah  and also in
\nfavour of Srinivasa  Cooperative Housing Society  Ltd., wherein
\nin recognition of such a right both Uppari Ramaiah and  his
\nlegal heirs  had  joined on receipt of  a certain part of the
\nconsideration  amount.\n<\/p>\n
In the course of his submissions, Mr. Parasaran referred
\nto a Notification  No.44 dated 6th June, 1949, by  which  the
\narea in question  was included in the Jubilee Hills area within
\nthe limits of the Hyderabad Municipality.  It was  urged that
\nthe said fact would go  a long way to establish that the lands
\nhad lost their  agricultural character   long ago and would no
\nlonger be governed by the provisions of the Tenancy Act of
\n1950 but by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,
\n1882.  To lend further support to his submission, Mr.
\nParasaran also pointed out that in 1969 Section 47 had been
\nomitted from the 1950 Act, inasmuch as, by then the lands
\ngoverned by the said  Act  had lost their agricultural  character
\nand had been converted into urban holdings.  In addition to
\nthe  provisions of Section 43 of  the Transfer of Property Act,
\nreference was also made to Section 13(1)(b)  of the Specific
\nRelief Act, 1968, whereunder  a person with no title or
\nimperfect title may be compelled  by the  purchaser or lessee
\nto execute or  procure documents to validate the title.
\nReference was  made to  a decision of this Court  in the
\ncase of   The Jumma  Masjid, Mercara  vs.  Kodimaniandra
\nDeviah,<\/a> (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 554, which was  a  case   dealing
\nwith  a representation made by a person  having only a  spes-
\nsuccessionis in the property transferred.   It was held that the
\ntransferee was entitled to the benefit  of Section 43 of the
\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882, if he had taken the transfer for
\nconsideration and on the faith of the representation.
\n  The decision   already referred to  hereinbefore in the
\ncase of Ram Pyare (supra)  echo the sentiments in the
\naforesaid  Jumma Masjid case.\n<\/p>\n
In applying the provisions of Section 43 of the aforesaid
\nAct in respect of the sale deed executed by a tenure holder, an
\nalternative argument was advanced to the effect that even if
\nthe sale deeds executed by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir
\nRiyasat Ali   and  Kaneez Fatima Begum  in favour of  Uppari
\nRamaiah should be  held  to be void on account of  non-
\ncompliance  with the provisions  of Section 47 of the Tenancy
\nAct of 1950,  it could  not be denied  that Mir Riyasat Ali
\ncontinued to be in possession  of  the lands as conveyed in his
\nfavour by Uppari Ramaiah from 1961 till 1982, during which
\nperiod not  only did Uppari Ramaiah and his  legal heirs
\nacquiesce in Mir Riyasat Ali’s  title to the said land, but they
\ndid not also   take any steps to challenge such title or to
\ninitiate eviction proceedings against Mir Riyasat Ali under
\nSection 98 of the said Act.  It was submitted that, as had been
\nfound by the learned Special Judge, the mischief under
\nSection 47 of the 1950 Act did not  prevent Mir Riyasat Ali and
\nor  those claiming under  him from acquiring  title to the
\nproperty by adverse possession, and, in fact, the respondents
\nin these  appeals lost  their   possession in the lands upon
\nexecution of the conveyance by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of
\nMir Riyasat Ali and the subsequent transferees from Mir
\nRiyasat Ali were in continuous and uninterrupted possession
\nof the land  and that they had consequently  perfected their
\ntitle in the lands  by way of adverse possession as against the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
Appearing for the heirs of  Uppari Ramaiah, Mr.K.K.
\nVenugopal,  learned senior counsel,  at  the very outset
\ncontended that A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,  1982,
\nwas not attracted to the facts of the instant case, since
\nadmittedly  the transferees from  Mir Riyasat Ali were in
\npossession    of  the lands conveyed in their favour.  Referring
\nto the  definition of the expression “land grabber” and “land
\ngrabbing” as defined in Sections 2 (d)  and 2 (e) of the said Act,
\nMr. Venugopal submitted that an act of  land grabbing would
\nnecessarily have to be followed by a physical attempt to take
\npossession of  the  lands involved, which element was lacking
\nin this case.\n<\/p>\n
Referring to the Deed of Sale  dated  21st  November,
\n1961 executed by Mir  Riyasat Ali in favour of Chandra
\nRamalingaiah and P. Neelakanteswaramma (Ext.A-5), Mr.
\nVenugopal urged that a  genuine civil dispute had been raised
\nregarding acquisition of title by Mir Riyasat Ali and through
\nhim his transferees in view of the recitals contained in the said
\ndeed wherein Uppari Ramaiah’s protected tenancy was
\nreferred to and it was also mentioned that  under the  Tenancy
\nAct of 1950 the protected  tenant  had a right to purchase the
\ninterest of the land holder, which in  fact, was the  case when
\nUppari Rammaiah  obtained the sale deed in his favour from
\nKaneez Fatima Begum on 1st May, 1961 and the same was
\nregistered on 4th May, 1961 before the Sub-Registrar,
\nKhairatabad, Hyderabad.   Pursuant thereto, Uppari Ramaiah
\nhad applied for a certificate under Section 38 of the aforesaid
\nAct and the same was issued in his favour by the Revenue
\nDivisional  Officer, Hyderabad (West), Hyderabad District, on
\n19th May, 1961.   According to  Mr. Venugopal, the learned
\nSpecial Judge had on  a wrong interpretation of the provisions
\nof the Tenancy Act of 1950  held  the heirs of  Uppari Ramaiah
\nto be  land grabbers within the meaning of the aforesaid Act.
\nIt was also submitted that the purported sale deed
\nexecuted by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riyasat Ali on 8th
\nFebruary, 1961 was contrary to the concept of “protected
\ntenancy” envisaged under the Tenancy Act of 1950 Act.  In the
\nevent  the recitals in the deed executed by Mir Riyasat Ali on
\n21st November, 1961, in favour of  Chandra Ramalingaiah  and
\nP. Neelakanteswaramma are to be accepted, then, Uppari
\nRamaiah had only  a  protected tenancy  in the lands in
\nquestion which he could  not  have conveyed to Mir Riyasat Ali
\non 8th February, 1961, without the prior sanction of the
\nTahsildar under Section 47  of the Tenancy Act of 1950 which
\notherwise  bars transfers in favour of non-agriculturists under
\nSection 49 of the aforesaid Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Venugopal submitted that since the A.P. Land
\nGrabbing Act, 1982 provides for   penal consequences,
\nincluding imprisonment under Sections 4 and 5 of the said
\nAct, and against which no appeal has been provided, the High
\nCourt  was entitled to question  the decision-making process
\nof the Special Court in exercise of  its  powers under  Articles
\n226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.  It was   submitted
\nthat the said view had also been expressed by this Court  in
\nState of A.P. vs. P.V. Hanumantharao,  (2003) 10 SCC 121.
\n Mr. Venugopal  submitted  that   Ext.B-9,  being the sale
\ndeed executed by Mir Riyasat Ali and Uppari Ramaiah and his
\nheirs in favour of Srinivasa Government Employees
\nCooperative Housing Society Limited could not be relied upon
\non account of the fact that of the consideration amount of
\nRs.85,854\/-, only  a sum of Rs.1,500\/- was paid to Uppari
\nRamaiah and his heirs, which clearly established the sham
\nnature of the transaction.  In addition it was  contended that
\nSection 43 of the Transfer of Property Act would  also not have
\nany application in the facts of the instant case since it would
\nfirst have to be established as to who had committed fraud
\nsince  both, Mir Riyasat  Ali, Uppari  Ramaiah   and his heirs
\nwere in pari delicto and  the  original contract between Uppari
\nRamaiah and Mir Riyasat Ali was void.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Venugopal submitted that  the doctrine of in pari
\ndelicto   which had been  explained by this Court in  Sita Ram
\nvs. Radhabai And Ors.<\/a> ,  (1968) 1  SCR 805, being  an
\nequitable principle, one  whose title to  a property  was based
\non fraud  could not claim that another had obtained the said
\nproperty by fraudulent means.  Mr. Venugopal submitted that
\nthe principle embodied in Section 43 of  the Transfer of
\nProperty Act regarding feeding the estoppel had been  held  to
\nbe inoperative and invalid in Ram Bhawan Singh vs. Jagbir
\nSingh And Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 309 when the transfer itself was
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
A further submission was made that in the case of
\nManchegowda And Ors. vs. State of Karnataka And Ors.
\n(1984) 3 SCC 301, this Court while considering certain
\nprohibited transfers under statute had held that the same
\nwere void as the transferees acquired only  a defeasible  title to
\nthe lands transferred.    Mr. Venugopal  denied  the claim
\nmade that Mir Riyasat Ali  had perfected his imperfect title by
\noperation of Section 43 of the Transfer  of Property Act, 1882
\nwhen Kaneez Fatima Begum  executed the sale deed in favour
\nof Uppari Ramaiah  on 1st May, 1961.  It was reiterated that
\nsince the sale deed  executed by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of
\nMir Riyasat Ali  was not based on any misrepresentation, the
\nprovisions of Section 43, which feeds its estoppel, would not
\nbe available to the transaction, notwithstanding the fact that
\nUppari Ramaiah subsequently acquired  full  rights  over the
\nland in question.  It was urged that the prohibition contained
\nin Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950 could not be
\ncircumvented  and\/or   defeated in the fraudulent  manner in
\nwhich it had been done.  Mr. Venugopal, submitted that the
\nsaid principle had been  considered by  this  Court in the case
\nof Kartar Singh (dead) by Lrs. And Ors. vs.  Harbanskaur
\n(Smt.) (1994)  4 SCC 730, wherein it was held that the rule of
\nestoppel  by deed by transferor would apply only when the
\ntransferee is  misled.  Where the transferee  knows  for  a fact
\nthat the transferor does not possess the title which he
\nrepresents, then he cannot be said to have  acted on such
\nrepresentation in  taking  a transfer.  Section 43 then would
\nhave no application and the transfer would fall under Section
\n6(1)  of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\n<\/p>\n
According to Mr. Venugopal it was well within the
\nknowledge of the parties that Uppari Ramaiah was only a
\nprotected tenant under Kaneez Fatima Begum.  The sale deed
\nexecuted by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riyasat Ali as
\nsuch   protected tenant was hit by the provisions  not only of
\nSection 47  but also  by  Section 49 of the Tenancy Act of
\n1950.\n<\/p>\n
Apart from  the above,  there is also no  pleading on
\nbehalf of the appellants on the application of Section 43 of the
\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Venugopal also opposed the alternative submission
\nmade by Mr. Parasaran that  P. Neelakantenswaramma  and
\nthe heirs of Chandra Ramalingaiah  had acquired title to the
\nproperty in question by adverse possession on the principle
\nthat  the  question of adverse possession could only be decided
\nby a civil court and not by a Special Court constituted under
\nthe A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
\nMr. R.F. Nariman,  learned senior  advocate, who
\nappeared  for     some of the respondents,  adopted the
\nsubmissions of Mr. Venugopal and contended that that since
\nthe Limitation Act would not apply  to the Special Tribunal,
\nthe plea of adverse  possession was not available in the
\nproceedings before the Special Court.   In any event, relying on
\na decision  of this Court in  Balkrishan vs.  Satyaprakash And
\nOrs.,<\/a>  (2001) 2 SCC 498, Mr. Nariman submitted that as had
\nbeen held  therein  the adverse  possession must be adequate
\nin   continuity, in publicity and in extent and  a plea is
\nrequired at the least to show  when possession becomes
\nadverse so that the  starting point of limitation against the
\nparty affected can be found.(See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina
\nAIR<\/a>  1964 SC 1254).\n<\/p>\n
In addition, Mr. Nariman submitted that the Full Bench
\nof the Andhra Pradesh High Court  had  in the case of Sada
\nvs. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District and Ors., reported in
\n1987 (2) ALT 749, held that a plea of adverse possession could
\nnot be taken by a land holder against a protected tenant, in
\nthis  case Uppari Ramaiah,  to whom a certificate had been
\nissued under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act of 1950.
\nReiterating Mr. Venugopal’s submission,  Mr. Nariman
\nconcluded on the note that mere attempt  to grab  cannot  be
\nequated  with an act of land grabbing and hence the
\nprovisions of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 would
\nhave no application to the facts of this case.
\nAppearing for the appellant in CA Nos.4534-4535\/99 and
\n4527-4528\/99 Mr. C. Pandari, learned advocate, adopted the
\nsubmissions made by Mr. Venugopal and Mr. Nariman and
\nsubmitted in addition that while  adjudicating on the
\ncomplaint by P. Neelakanteswarama and the  heirs of Chandra
\nRamalingaiah, the learned Special Judge had exceeded his
\njurisdiction  in making observations on the rights  said to have
\nbeen assigned  in favour of  respondent Nos. 7 to 16  which
\nallegedly obstructed  the appellant’s  right  to work out his
\ncivil rights in respect of the property.  It was urged  that the
\nlearned  Special Judge was only   required to adjudicate on the
\nquestion as to whether  the opposite parties had acted  in a
\nmanner in respect  of  the lands in question which would
\nattract the provisions of the A.P.Land  Grabbing (Prohibition)
\nAct, 1982.\n<\/p>\n
  In his brief reply Mr. Parasaran contended that not all
\nacts done contrary to any statutory provision are always   void
\nbut in  some cases voidable and  if a voidable act is not
\navoided within  a  reasonable time, parties  are subsequently
\nprecluded from challenging the same.\n<\/p>\n
He also attempted to show  that fraud had not been
\npleaded by  the appellant which would take out the matter
\nfrom the ambit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act,
\n1882.  Referring once again to Kartar Singh’s case (supra), Mr.
\nParasaran tried to  convince us that in  the said decision
\nnothing different  to what had been held in the Jumma
\nMasjid’s case (supra)  had been indicated.\n<\/p>\n
  Although, the facts involved in these appeals
\nnecessitated lengthy submissions, the scope and ambit thereof
\nis limited.\n<\/p>\n
 The main issue  which surfaces in these appeals is
\nwhether the  actions arising out of the dispute  raised by the
\nheirs of Uppari Rammaiah  can be said to attract the
\nprovisions of the  A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
\nAdmittedly, the transferees from  Mir Riyasat Ali and Chandra
\nRamalingaiah    as also P. Neelakanteswaramma have been in
\npossession of  the properties in dispute and at no point of time
\nhad their possession been disturbed.  The  attempts by the
\nheirs of Uppari Ramaiah to dispossess the said transferees
\ncould at  best be said to be an attempt to gain possession  of
\nthe lands  without actually obtaining possession thereof,
\nwhich  would not constitute an act  of land grabbing within
\nthe meaning of the    A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,
\n1982.  We agree with both Mr. Venugopal and Mr. Nariman
\nthat in order to constitute an act  of land grabbing, an attempt
\nto dispossess must be followed by actual dispossession which
\nwould then constitute land grabbing so as to attract the penal
\nprovisions of the 1982 Act.\n<\/p>\n
These appeals should fail  on the said ground alone but it
\nhas also been argued, and, in our view, quite rightly so, that
\nthe initial document executed by Uppari Ramaiah  in favour of
\nMir Riyasat Ali on  8th February, 1961, was void since Uppari
\nRamaiah did not have any saleable interest in the land at that
\nstage having regard  to the express prohibition under Sections
\n47 and 49 of the Tenancy Act of 1950.  We are unable to agree
\nwith Mr. Parasaran that this was merely a voidable
\ntransaction and was capable of being avoided without the
\ndefect being cured under Section 50B of the said Act.  It was
\nall the more so since the transfer   was being made by a
\nprotected tenant  as an agriculturist  to a non-agriculturist
\nwhich has also been  expressly prohibited under the Act.  That
\nUppari Ramaiah was aware that the lands were agricultural in
\nnature is evident from the application filed before the learned
\nSpecial Judge in which the said lands aware described as “dry
\nagricultural lands”.  Except for the fact that the said lands
\nwere now included within  an urban area there is nothing  to
\nshow that the user of the same  had been  altered with the
\npassage of time.  The decision in Sarifabibi’s  case (supra)
\ncited by Mr. Parasaran  does not, therefore, help his clients’
\ncase.  The scheme of the Tenancy Act of 1950  is reflected  in
\nSection 30 of the Act which prohibits  sub- division or
\nsubletting of  any land by a tenant or assignment  of any
\ninterest  held by him therein.  The  Preamble  to the Act
\nprovides that it was   expedient inter alia  to amend   the law
\nregulating the relations of landlords and tenants of
\nagricultural lands  and the alienation of such lands and to
\nenable the land holders  to prevent excessive sub-division of
\nagricultural holdings.  In our view, in a proceeding before the
\nSpecial Court the only issue which fall for decision  is whether
\nthere  has been an act of land grabbing as alleged and who is
\nthe guilty  party.  The Special Court has no jurisdiction to
\ndecide questions relating to acquisition of title  by adverse
\npossession in a  proceeding under the Act as the same would
\nfall within  the domain of the civil  courts.  The learned Special
\nJudge apparently traveled beyond  the  jurisdiction vested in
\nhim under the 1982 Act in deciding that even if the  provisions
\nof Section 47 of the Act was a  bar to transfer without the
\nsanction of the Tahsildar, the occupants of the land had
\nperfected their title thereto by way of adverse possession.
\nEven on the question of the applicability of Section 43 of
\nthe Transfer of Property Act, we agree with the view taken by
\nthe High Court  that  when the initial  transfer itself  between
\nUppari Ramaiah and Mir Riyasat Ali was  invalid, the question
\nof application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act to
\nsuch a transaction on account of  subsequent acquisition of
\ntitle by Uppari Ramaiah would not be available.
\nAs far as the appeals filed by N. Srinivasa Rao  are
\nconcerned, his only  grievance is with regard to the
\nobservations   made by the Writ Court while disposing of the
\nwrit applications in  his favour.   Such observations appear to
\nhave been made in passing  and  cannot bind the parties in a
\nproperly constituted suit where the rights of the parties are to
\nbe adjudicated.  We, therefore, clarify that in the event any
\ncivil action is taken by the said N. Srinivasa Rao in
\nfurtherance of his rights, if any, under the General Power of
\nAttorney  granted in his favour and\/or any other document,
\nsuch observations will not be relied upon in coming to a
\ndecision in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
We do not think that the orders passed by the High Court
\ncall  for any interference in these appeals  which are disposed
\nof accordingly.  There will be no order as to costs.
\nIn our view, nothing further remains to be considered in
\nthe contempt applications and they stand disposed of
\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4527-4528 of 1999 PETITIONER: N. Srinivasa Rao RESPONDENT: Spl. Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/2006 BENCH: B.P. Singh […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land ... on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land ... on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-13T07:34:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T07:34:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5933,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\",\"name\":\"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land ... on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T07:34:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land ... on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land ... on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-13T07:34:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T07:34:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006"},"wordCount":5933,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006","name":"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land ... on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T07:34:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-srinivasa-rao-vs-spl-court-under-a-p-land-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Srinivasa Rao vs Spl. Court Under A.P. Land … on 23 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}