1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, regarding appointments to the Special Court. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 629
1998(5) Supreme 50
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
K. Mohanlal & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2734-2735 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19821-22 of 1997)
Decided on 14-5-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Dipankar Gupta, Sr. Advocate (A.C.)
For the State : Mrs. K. Amareshwari, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Asha Nair, Ms. Shanti Narayan, K. Ram Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P. Niroop, Advocate for Harishankar, K. Advocate.
Important Points
Important Point
Section 7 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Protection) Act, 1982 providing constitution of Special Courts is constitutionally valid.
Section 7 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Protection) Act, 1982 providing constitution of Special Courts is constitutionally valid.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Tribunals
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Constitution of India-Art. 323-A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Section 7-Legislative Competence-Special Courts dealings with land grabbing cases -Constituted under A.P. Act of 1982-Is within legislative competence of State Government. (Para 7)
(ii) Constitution of India-Art. 323A-A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Section 7-Constitution of Special Courts-Constitutional validity - Appointment of members without providing for consultation with Chief Justice of High Court concerned-Does not make Special Courts constituted under A.P. Act of 1982 unconstitutional especially when the appointment of Chairman is in consultation with/nomination by the Chief Justice of High Court-High Court directions for mandatory consultation with Chief Justice of High Court in case of appointment of members and to place existing appointments before it-Improper and liable to be quashed. (Paras 14 & 15)
Held : It would not be correct to hold that because the Members of the Special Court can be appointed by the Government without consulting the Chief Justice of the State, the Special Court is an unconstitutional court, since its Members do not enjoy the same degree of independence as the members of the higher judiciary, especially when the Chairman’s appointment is in consultation with the Chief Justice of the State. Also, the remedy under Articles 226 and 227 is available against the orders of the Special Court. (Para 11)
In the light of the express provisions of Part XIV of the Constitution containing Articles 323A and 323B, and the observations of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997(3) Supreme 147, it would not be correct to hold that such Tribunals are unconstitutional, at least when the appointment of the Chairman of the Tribunal is in consultation with/nomination by the Chief Justice of the High Court. (Para 14)
Consequently held : The High Court, therefore, was not right in giving directions for mandatory consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of appointment of all Members including Revenue Members of the Special Court. The High Court was also not right in directing that existing appointments made to the Special Court should be placed before it for the opinion of the Chief Justice of High Court, and in giving the directions it did. (Para 15)
Held finally : The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The appeals are allowed, with no order as to costs. (Para 16)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the absence of consultation with the Chief Justice for the appointment of Judicial and Revenue Members undermines the independence of the Tribunal. (Para 8 )
3. Judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 serves as a safeguard, meaning Tribunals need not possess the same independence as the superior judiciary. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
4. A composite Tribunal is not unconstitutional if its orders are subject to judicial review and the Chairman's appointment involves consultation with the Chief Justice. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
5. High Court directions for mandatory consultation for all members set aside and appeals allowed. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Does the lack of consultation with the Chief Justice for all members make a Special Court unconstitutional?
No. A composite Tribunal is not per se unconstitutional if the Chairman's appointment involves consultation and its orders are subject to judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
7. What is the requirement for appointing a sitting District Judge to a Special Court?
Under Article 235, a sitting District Judge cannot be appointed by the Government to the Special Court without the consent of the High Court. (Para 12 )
8. Is a Special Court with mixed composition considered part of the judicial service of the State?
No, it is an Administrative Tribunal with a mixed composition of Judicial and Revenue Members and is not part of the judicial service of the State. (Para 13 )
9. How does the power of judicial review affect the required independence of Tribunals?
Since judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution, it acts as a check on Tribunals, reducing the necessity for absolute judicial independence. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 )
Judgment
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Leave granted.
2. On 29th June, 1982 the State of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Ordinance, 1982. It was subsequently replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The Act has since been amended twice-once by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 to 1987 and again by Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1988.
3. In 1996 a practising advocate filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. One N. Venkatesh also addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a press clipping relating to the appointments to the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, which was treated as a writ petition. Both these petitions were heard together. By the impugned judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave certain directions which can be summarised as follows:
(1) The State shall convey to the Registrar of the High Court all material pertaining to the qualifications and ability/suitability etc. of the existing incumbents both Judicial Members and Revenue Members of the Special Court constituted under the said Act forthwith;
(2) The Registrar shall place the material so received before the Chief Justice of the High Court and shall convey the orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court in this behalf to the Chief Secretary to the Government;
(3) The State is restrained from making any appointments of Judicial Members and Revenue Members without “the consultation in respect of the selection of such Member/Members with the Chief Justice of the High Court”; and
(4) The State shall decide whether any incumbent Judicial Member/Revenue Member shall continue after receiving the opinion in this behalf of the Chief Justice of the High Court and such incumbent shall cease to function in case opinion adverse to his continuance is conveyed to him.
4. The present appeals are filed from the above judgment and order.
5. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the said Act states, “It has come to the notice of the Government that there are organised attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab either by force or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf or any other private persons. The land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise .....”. The Special Court has been set up under the said Act to deal with such acts of land grabbing.
6. The challenge in the proceedings is to the constitutional validity of Section 7 relating to the appointments to be made to the Special Court. The relevant parts of Section 7, as it stands at present, are as follows :
“7. Constitution of Special Courts:- (1) The Government, may, for the purpose of providing speedy enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing, and trial of cases in respect of the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, by notification, constitute a Special Court.
(2) A Special Court shall consist of a Chairman and four other members, to be appointed by the Government.
(3) The Chairman shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court and of the other four members, two shall be persons who are or have been District Judges (hereinafter referred to as Judicial Members) and the other two members shall be persons who hold or have held a post not below the rank of a District Collector (hereinafter referred to as Revenue Members) :
Provided that the appointment of a person who was a Judge of a High Court as the Chairman of the Special
