Case Name: V. S. R. Mohan Rao v. K. S. R. Murthy & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 12570 of 2025)
Date of Judgment: 15 May 2025
Quorum: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
V.S.R. Mohan Rao, the appellant, bought a land through a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1997. He had built and stayed in a two-storey house on it. Later, K.S.R. Murthy’s legal heirs (respondents) said that part of this land—252 square yards—actually belonged to them and the appellant was a land grabber. They filed a case under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
The respondents said they had bought 555 square yards in Survey No. 9 back in 1965, while the appellant’s deed was in Survey No. 10. They accused the appellant of grabbing land illegally, and the Special Court believed their version and ordered the appellant’s eviction.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the appellant really a “land grabber” under the Land Grabbing Act?
- Can someone be punished under the Act without criminal intention (mens rea)?
- Did the land actually fall under Survey No. 9 or 10?
- Was the procedure followed by the Special Court fair?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 2(d), 2(e) of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act: Defines “land grabber” and “land grabbing.”
- Section 10: Describes how ownership has to be proved and the burden of proof.
- Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002) 3 SCC 258: Landmark judgment on the scope and intention of the Act.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
- He purchased the land legally through a valid deed from people claiming title via a housing society.
- He did not have any bad intention, so he cannot be called a land grabber.
- If at all, it’s just a simple trespass, not land grabbing.
- Argued that he had been living there peacefully and even filed suits to protect his possession.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
- They are legal heirs of the original owner who had title since 1965.
- A government survey clearly showed that the appellant’s house stands on Survey No. 9, not 10.
- Appellant’s suits had failed, and his claim of ownership or adverse possession cannot stand.
- Land Grabbing Act applies even to private individuals, and this is a fit case.
ANALYSIS
The Court explained that under the Land Grabbing Act, both intention and action matter. It’s not necessary that someone should act violently or forcibly. Even quietly occupying someone else’s land without right, for illegal purpose, counts.
The definition of “land grabbing” includes greedy, unfair, unscrupulous possession. In this case:
- The appellant bought land in Survey No. 10 but built his house in Survey No. 9.
- A government officer’s report proved that clearly.
- The suits filed by appellant earlier also failed, which supports the respondents’ claim.
The Court said even if the appellant thought he was doing right, the fact is that the land does not belong to him. Also, his claim of adverse possession failed because no solid proof was shown—like when construction began or for how long it continued. That weakens his case.
JUDGMENT
- The Land Grabbing Act applies here.
- There was enough proof that the appellant grabbed land illegally.
- His purchase paper was for a different plot number.
- The Commissioner’s Report clearly proved the encroachment.
- His claim of good faith or long possession didn’t save him.
So, the appeal was dismissed. The earlier decision of the Special Court and High Court was confirmed.
CONCLUSION
- Even private land can be protected under the Land Grabbing Act.
- Good faith is not enough if you build on someone else’s land.
- “Land grabbing” includes unfair occupation even without force or violence.
- Courts need proof, not just claims.
- The law expects people to check and verify land properly before buying or building.
The Supreme Court sided with the original landowner’s legal heirs and said illegal occupation even if peaceful can still be called land grabbing under law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.
