A had been cultivating three acres of land by adverse possession for more than thirty years. A was paying revenue outgoings continuously. X Government initiated the proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act. Advice A.

Issue:

1. Whether adverse possession by A is valid? YES

2. Whether A is the owner of the cultivating land? YES

3. Whether A is a land-grabbers within the meaning of Section? NO

Rule:

Section 2 (d) land grabber means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts, and also includes the successors in interest.

Application:

State of A.P. Vs. G.Venkamma, 2002 (2) ALT 321, it has been held that an inference of continuity of adverse possession of respondents for the past more than 30 years by the date of filing of land grabbing cases was not held to be land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2 (D) and (E) of the Act.

Goundla Venkaiah and Another Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Sher Ungampally Mandal and Others, 2000(4) ALT 107, it has been observed that as the petitioners have succeeded in establishing that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land for more than the statutory period, and perfected their title over the schedule property by way of adverse possession, to give a finding that the petitioners are land grabbers is quite incorrect and illegal.

State of Rajasthan Vs. Harphool Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 652, the Supreme Court, while reiterating the ingredients to be satisfied for establishing averse possession, held that the burden of proof is on the party claiming adverse possession. There must be a pleading that his possession is open, continuous and hostile to the real owner and he must establish the same by clear evidence. Further they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said land for the past more than 30 years. Hence they are not grabbers within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.

Conclusion:

In the instant problem, A cannot be treated as land grabber within the meaning of Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act because he had been enjoying the property continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 30 years. Thus he acquires right bey prescription.