J.V. Sarma and ors. Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- specific relief act, 1963 [c.a. no. 47/1963]. sections 31 & 34: [bilal nazki, v.v.s. rao & g. chandraiah, jj] [per court] cancellation of registered sale deed inherent power of registering authority - fraudulent transfer of property sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee held, it is void. true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. -- transfer of property act,1882[c.a. no. 4/1882]. sections 53 & 126: [per court] cancellation of registered sale deed inherent power of registering authority - fraudulent transfer of property sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee held, it is void. true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. - the challenge to the order passed by the special court under the andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act is on the plea of that court having failed to go into the question of the legality and validity of the notification under section 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the andhra pradesh slum improvement (acquisition of land) act, 1956 (for short 'the slum act'). it is to be made clear that though in the body of the writ petition affidavit, the notification under section 3 (1) of the slum act has been stated to be invalid, yet no relief is claimed to declare the notification as bad.orderlingaraja rath, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. the challenge to the order passed by the special court under the andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act is on the plea of that court having failed to go into the question of the legality and validity of the notification under section 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the andhra pradesh slum improvement (acquisition of land) act, 1956 (for short 'the slum act'). it is to be made clear that though in the body of the writ petition affidavit, the notification under section 3 (1) of the slum act has been stated to be invalid, yet no relief is claimed to declare the notification as bad. the special court though held that the petitioners had acquired title in respect of the land in question, yet in view of the notification under the slum act of which the respondents are the beneficiaries held that it cannot go into the question as to the validity or otherwise of the notification and hence cannot hold the respondents as land grabbers.2. sri. v.v.s. rao, learned counsel for the petitioners urges that section l5 of the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 makes an overriding provision for the act to have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court of any other tribunal or authority. it is the submission of the learned counsel that since under section 8 of the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982, the special court is vested with the authority to decide the questions of land grabbing, it should have gone into the question.3. we are afraid, the submission is not worthwhile. once the notification is published under the slum act and the respondents are made beneficiaries of that, they acquire right to be upon the land. hence, they cannot be described as land grabbers. it is another thing to contend that the notification under the slum act was incorrectly or invalidly issued. but such question does not arise before us. the notification under section 3 (1) and 3(2) of the slum act itself states individual notices to have been issued to the owners of the land, their objections received, considered and rejected. the contention raised by mr. rao that no notices were actually received, is a disputed question of fact, the investigation of which we do not propose to undertake though the presumption of official acts to have been correctly done, is a rebuttable one. it is open to the petitioners to raise the question at such forums as are available to them. the provisions of section 15 providing for overriding effect of the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, are only to the effect that the provisions of the act would prevail over any other law; custom; usage; agreement; decree or order of a court or any other tribunal or authority. the provision does not mean vesting of authority in the tribunal to treat a person as a grabber of the land when statute confers the right upon him to occupy the land. 'land grabbing' as is defined in section 2 (e) means an activity of grabbing by a person or others without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take illegal possession of such lands etc. the crux of the matter is after coming into possession of the land to which he is not lawfully entitled, but once the law itself cares (sic. creates) the rights in his favour as in the slum act, the matter is taken out of the purview of 'land grabbing' and consequently of the land grabbing tribunal. the court or the tribunal even if they have the jurisdiction, are to decide only in accordance with established law, of which the slum act is one, and once it is found that under the slum act, valid right or title has been created in favour of some persons, the special court is to respect it.4. in view of these considerations, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Lingaraja Rath, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The challenge to the order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act is on the plea of that Court having failed to go into the question of the legality and validity of the notification under Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Slum Act'). It is to be made clear that though in the body of the writ petition affidavit, the notification under Section 3 (1) of the Slum Act has been stated to be invalid, yet no relief is claimed to declare the notification as bad. The Special Court though held that the petitioners had acquired title in respect of the land in question, yet in view of the notification under the Slum Act of which the respondents are the beneficiaries held that it cannot go into the question as to the validity or otherwise of the notification and hence cannot hold the respondents as land grabbers.

2. Sri. V.V.S. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners urges that Section l5 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 makes an overriding provision for the Act to have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court of any other Tribunal or authority. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that since under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, the Special Court is vested with the authority to decide the questions of land grabbing, it should have gone into the question.

3. We are afraid, the submission is not worthwhile. Once the notification is published under the Slum Act and the respondents are made beneficiaries of that, they acquire right to be upon the land. Hence, they cannot be described as land grabbers. It is another thing to contend that the notification under the Slum Act was incorrectly or invalidly issued. But such question does not arise before us. The notification under Section 3 (1) and 3(2) of the Slum Act itself states individual notices to have been issued to the owners of the land, their objections received, considered and rejected. The contention raised by Mr. Rao that no notices were actually received, is a disputed question of fact, the investigation of which we do not propose to undertake though the presumption of official acts to have been correctly done, is a rebuttable one. It is open to the petitioners to raise the question at such forums as are available to them. The provisions of Section 15 providing for overriding effect of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, are only to the effect that the provisions of the Act would prevail over any other law; custom; usage; agreement; decree or order of a Court or any other Tribunal or authority. The provision does not mean vesting of authority in the Tribunal to treat a person as a grabber of the land when Statute confers the right upon him to occupy the land. 'Land Grabbing' as is defined in Section 2 (e) means an activity of grabbing by a person or others without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take illegal possession of such lands etc. The crux of the matter is after coming into possession of the land to which he is not lawfully entitled, but once the law itself cares (sic. creates) the rights in his favour as in the Slum Act, the matter is taken out of the purview of 'land grabbing' and consequently of the Land Grabbing Tribunal. The Court or the Tribunal even if they have the jurisdiction, are to decide only in accordance with established law, of which the Slum Act is one, and once it is found that under the Slum Act, valid right or title has been created in favour of some persons, the Special Court is to respect it.

4. In view of these considerations, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.