LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/v-s-r-mohan-rao-vs-k-s-r-murthy-ors-20250515/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

V. S. R. Mohan Rao vs K. S. R. Murthy & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 May 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6879 of 2025
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran
Citation
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 773 : 2025 INSC 708
Acts & Sections
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition)…
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 773 : 2025 INSC 708
Issue for consideration
Whether the appellant is a ‘land grabber’ under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – ss.2(d), (e) – ‘Land grabbing’; ‘Land grabber’ – Case of the applicant (predecessors-in-interest of the respondents) before the Special Court was that the appellant was in occupation of a portion of the land belonging to the applicant forming part of survey no.9 whereas the sale deed produced by the appellant showed his property to be in survey no.10 – Appellant was held to be a ‘land grabber’, eviction directed: Held: The term ‘land grabbing’ is employed in the statute conferring on it both a narrow and broad connotation – The broader meaning being of taking away unauthorisedly, greedily or unfairly and the narrow meaning being of snatching forcibly, violently or by unscrupulous means – It cannot be said that there should necessarily be criminality insofar as the encroachment or trespass carried out – The mens rea or intention required is only of illegally taking possession of land, through unlawful or arbitrary means, by oneself or through others, for creation of third party rights, carrying out constructions or use and occupation unauthorisedly – Undisputedly, the appellant had purchased land in survey no.10 – Applicant proved her possession by virtue of the title deed and also took out a Commission which identified the property in the possession of the appellant to be clearly in survey no.9 and not survey no.10 – Thus, the survey numbers in the sale deed produced by the applicant and the appellant, as also the failed attempts of the appellant to obtain an injunction against the applicant and the Municipality; in suits wherein the claim raised was against the very same property, together establish the allegation of land grabbing – Impugned judgment of High Court not interfered with. [Paras 7, 16, 17].

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – s.10 – Ownership of the land, burden of proof – Shifting of onus – Discussed. [Para 14]

Keywords: Land grabber · Land grabbing · ‘Grab’ · Mens rea · Intention · Criminality · Encroachment · Trespass · Encroached into the property · Possession proved · Title deed · Adverse possession · Principle of adverse possession · Injunction · Prima facie proof · Taking away unauthorisedly, greedily or unfairly · Snatching forcibly, violently or by unscrupulous means · Illegally taking possession of land · Vendors · Ownership of the land · Initial burden · Burden of proof · Shifting of onus · Presumption · Special Court

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved with the fact that he has been accused and termed to be a ‘land grabber’ without due cause and directed to be evicted from the property which he duly acquired under a sale deed, wherein he had been residing from the date of purchase; that is from 27.03.1997. The applicant before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act1 was concerned with 252 square yards of land in occupation of the appellant, which the applicant asserted, was a clear case of land grabbing, of a portion of the land belonging to the applican
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →