REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1849 OF 2002

V.LAXMINARASAMMA ... Appellant(s)

Versus

A.YADAIAH (DEAD) AND ORS. ... Respondent(s)

WITH

Crl. A. No. 1850/2002

J U D G M E N T

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

During the hearing of these appeals it was noticed that two decisions of

this Court rendered by two learned Single Judges expressed contrary views and the

matter was referred to a larger Bench. The dispute relates to the Andhra Pradesh

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ( in short 'Act'). The two decisions which

were referred to by the Bench while making reference to a larger Bench were Konda

Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2002) 3SCC 258

and N.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Special Court under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

Act & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 214. The three Judge Bench by judgment dated 3.3.2009

held that Kunda Lakshmana Bapuji case (supra) lays down the correct law and N.

Srinivasa Rao does not. The

-2-

reference was accordingly answered. The three Judge Bench was of the view that

the tribunal/Special Court constituted under the Act has requisite jurisdiction to go

into the question of adverse possession. The three Judge Bench also noticed that it is

one thing to say that a summary proceeding cannot be resorted to when a noticee

resists bonefide dispute involving complicated questions of title and his right remain

in possession of the land. But, it is another thing to say that although both the

Special Court and/or Tribunal which has all the powers of a civil court would not be

entitled to enter into such a contention. After the reference was answered this

matter is placed before us.

So far as the appellant is concerned the following finding have been

recorded by the Special Court:-

“25.In view of the fact that no document of the so-called gift

of the temples and the lands having been made in favour of the

ancestors of respondent 41, have been filed in the court and also in

view of the statement of respondent 41 that she has been appointed as

a “Poojari” for a monthly remuneration of Rs. 17.22 by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West and the remarks contained in the

pahanics as well as in the Endowment register of 50 Years old showing

the land as inam land of Dhaibagh temple, we are convicted that the

petition-schedule land belongs to the applicant-temple.

-3-

27.xxxxxSince the respondent 41 and her ancestors have

been Poojaris of the temples, there shall be no order of eviction against

her. We feel that in all fairness, some time should be given to the

respondents for demolishing the houses and for taking away the

structures on the petition-schedule lands.”

In view of the judgment of the three Judges-Bench the conclusion of

Special Court are to be operative.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Crl. A. No. 1850/2002:

De-linked.

...................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

....................J.

((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi,

April 29, 2009.