Hyderabad: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has made it clear that peaceful possession of land by third parties without legal rights was to be considered as land grabbing. The court clarified that violence between the parties over the land was not a necessary condition for land grabbing.The court also said that once a prima facie case of ownership was made out by the complainant, the burden shifted to the alleged land grabber to rebut the presumption.A division bench of the apex court comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandranj issued the ruling on a SLP filed by V.S.R. Mohan Rao, who challenged the Telangana High Court`s orders which had upheld the ruling of the special court for land grabbing cases that declared him a land grabber and directed that he be evicted the land. Mohan Rao said he had purchased two-storey building on the land in Saroornagar and was living there.As per the case, Mohan Rao, the appellant , was alleged to be in occupation of around 252 square yards of land which was part of a plot admeasuring 555 square yards in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar. The complainant said she had purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated January 1, 1965.The sale deed produced by the appellant Mohan Rao showed his property to be in Survey No. 10. After an inspection by the survey department, it was determined that the land in dispute fell in Survey No. 9.Hence, the special court for land grabbing case upheld the complaint. The High Court had said that it was nothing but land grabbing by Mohan Rao.Aggrieved with the High Court orders, Mohan Rao filed SLP before the Supreme Court and claimed ownership of the land parcel by relying the principle of adverse possession, as a two-storey building occupied by his vendor was existing on the land for many years from whom he had purchased it.The Supreme Court rejected his contentions on the ground that the complainant had submitted her title deed over the land whereas appellant Mohan Rao had failed to submit proof on which such construction was commenced and concluded. The court observed that this put to peril the plea of adverse possession since it put paid to the foundation of a hostile animus.
Source link
