2009 INSC 0944
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                            V.Laxminarasamma

                                                      Vs.

                                             A.Yadaiah (Dead)

                                           C.A.No.1849 of 2002

                          (Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly JJ.)

                                                  29.04.2009

                                                JUDGMENT

Dr.Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. 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.1 and N.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Special Court under the A.P.Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act & Ors.2. 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 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.

1  SpotLaw
        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."

2. 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.

1(2002) 3SCC 258
22006 (4) SCC 214

2  SpotLaw