AP Land Grabbing Act | Peaceful Possession Without Legal Right Still Constitutes 'Land Grabbing' : Supreme Court

In a significant ruling interpreting the scope of land grabbing under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (“the Act”), the Supreme Court clarified that violence is not a prerequisite for an act to amount to land grabbing. The Court held that even peaceful or “non-violent” unauthorized possession of land falls within the ambit of the Act.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the finding that the appellant was a "land grabber" under the Act due to his unauthorized and non-violent occupation of the land.

The judgment authored by Justice Chandran, relying on the case of Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 3 SCC 258, which laid down the legal position that even if a person "peacefully" occupies land without legal right, it can still qualify as land grabbing under the Act.

“As has been held in the cited decision, the term 'land grabbing' is employed in the statute, conferring on it both a narrow and broad connotation and 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 unauthorizedly.”, the court observed.

Background

The dispute revolved around 252 square yards of land in Survey No. 9, claimed by the legal heirs of the original owner, who held a registered sale deed from 1965. The appellant, V.S.R. Mohan Rao, purchased what he believed was an adjacent plot in Survey No. 10 in 1997 and constructed a two-story building. The appellant contended that he had lawfully purchased a specific parcel of land (Survey No. 10). However, a government survey revealed that he was actually in possession of a different plot (Survey No. 9), over which he had no legal title.

The question was whether the appellant could be declared a "land grabber" under the Act for allegedly occupying a portion of the respondent's land (252 sq. yards out of 555 sq. yards in Survey No. 9).

Applying the law, the Court ruled that despite the absence of force or aggression, the Appellant's continued unauthorized occupation amounted to land grabbing under the provisions of the Act.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: V. S. R. MOHAN RAO VERSUS K. S. R. MURTHY & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Guneswaran Pv, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR