Supreme Court: Allegation Of Land Grabbing By Itself Doesn’t Give Rise To Presumption; Presumption Arises Only When Ownership Is Prima Facie Established

The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by an individual accused of being a 'land grabber', upholding the Order for his eviction from a property he claimed to have duly acquired. The Court affirmed that the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act were correctly invoked in this instance.

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “Under Section 10 of the Act the initial burden, prima facie, to prove the ownership of the land is on the person who asserts it by way of an application alleging an act of land grabbing. On prima facie proof being offered the onus will shift to the land grabber, since there is a presumption arising if the ownership of the subject land is proved prima facie. The allegation of land grabbing by itself does not give rise to the presumption, which arises only when prima facie the ownership is established, at which point the alleged land grabber can lead evidence to rebut the presumption. Merely because of the shifting of the onus, on the initial prima facie burden being discharged, it cannot be said that there is a prejudice caused to the respondent before the Special Court.”

AOR Sudhir Naagar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate PV Yogeswaran represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The applicant before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act asserted that the Appellant had encroached on this land.

The Appellant argued that he had purchased the property through a registered sale deed on and had been residing in a double-storied building on the land. He contended that his title, if in doubt, was perfected by his predecessors-in-interest through adverse possession.

The Respondents, the legal heirs of the original Applicant, argued that a Court-appointed commissioner from the Survey Department found the Appellant to have encroached on the Applicant's property.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted, “We cannot but observe that though a claim is raised on adverse possession, by reason only of a building constructed on the subject land, no proof was offered as to the date on which such construction was commenced and concluded.”

The Bench remarked, “We say this, despite having noticed that the applicant has a case that on being aware of the commencement of construction, the applicant had moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking action against the Housing Society, the 13th respondent, which purchased the property in survey no. 10 from Valluru Venkateshwarlu, the vendor of the applicant as also the Society; the predecessor in interest of the appellant too. This puts to peril the plea of adverse possession since it puts paid the foundation of a hostile animus.”

“The ingredients required under the Land Grabbing Act definitely are pleaded in the application, which remain an allegation till it is proved before the Special Court,” the Bench stated.

The Court referred to its decision in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002), wherein it was explained that “an allegation is a requirement to maintain a petition but however, proof should be offered insofar as the claim of title asserted by the applicant in which context only the onus of proof shifts to the alleged land grabber. Even then, there is ample opportunity for the land grabber to rebut the presumption, which the appellant herein has not been able to do before the Special Court.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: V.S.R. Mohan Rao v. K.S.R. Murthy (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 708)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Sudhir Naagar

Respondent: AOR Ashish Kumar Upadhyay; Advocates P. V. Yogeswaran, Y. Lokesh, Bibek Tripathi, Arun Singh, Maitri Goal and Kandha Prabhu

Click here to read/download the Judgment