Back
Supreme Court Of India
MAHALAXMI MOTORS LTD - Appellant
Versus
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER - Respondent
Appeal (Civil) 4755 Of 2007
Decided On : 10/10/2007
.
LAND GRABBING - Interpretation and application of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Section 3, Section 4, Section 7, Section 8 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, focusing on the definition of 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing', the unlawful nature of land grabbing, and the jurisdiction and powers of the Special Court. The court also considers the legal principles established in previous cases, including the requirement of unlawful possession and the application of the Act as a self-contained code.
Fact of the Case:
The land in question vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The appellant, a company, acquired purported right, title, and interest in the land through registered sale deeds. Despite knowledge of the land's vested status, the appellant made investments and sought regularization of the land. The State initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, declaring the appellant as a land grabber and seeking eviction and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Court found that the appellant was in possession of the land without lawful entitlement and was therefore a land grabber under the Act. The court held that the appellant's possession was illegal and ordered eviction and compensation. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the Special Court's decision, dismissing the appellant's writ petition.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's title to the land, the legality of its possession, and the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The court also considered the jurisdiction and powers of the Special Court, as well as the interpretation of the Act's provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's possession of the land without lawful entitlement constituted land grabbing under the Act. The court also emphasized that the Act is a self-contained code, providing the Special Court with extensive jurisdiction to determine questions of title and possession. The court further noted that the appellant's application for regularization did not confer lawful entitlement to the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Special Court's finding that the appellant was a land grabber under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The appellant was ordered to be evicted and pay compensation to the State.
S. B. SINHA, J.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) INTERPRETATION and/or application of the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act') is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30. 04. 2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15920 of 2004.
( 3 ) THE land bearing Survey No. 82 situate in village Bowenpally and survey No. 157/1 situate in Village Thokatta appurtenant to Trimulgherry mandal, Hyderabad, admeasuring 7788 sq. metres were inam lands. The said lands vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh upon coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') with effect from 20. 07. 1955.
( 4 ) ONE B. Ramender Reddy and several others were claiming ownership of the said lands purported to have acquired title of the Inamdars. They sought for the grant of occupancy certificate from the State. The application filed in that behalf was rejected by the Collector.
( 5 ) RAMENDER Reddy, however, transferred his purported right, title and interest in the said lands by reason of two registered deeds of sale dated 03. 01. 1985 and 05. 01. 1985 in favour of the appellant, which is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
( 6 ) DESPITE the fact that Ramender Reddy had already transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the appellant-company by reason of the aforementioned deeds of sale, he along with some others, who were also claiming similar rights, filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High court being Writ Petitions Nos. 8734 to 8737 of 1983 etc. The said writ petitions were dismissed by reason of a judgment and order dated 06. 03. 1987 by a learned Single Judge of the said Court opining that in view of Section 3 (1) of the 1955 Act the lands in question had vested in the State. The said judgment attained finality. Even a Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by this Court.
( 7 ) APPELLANT, however, despite knowledge of the said judgment and order dated 06. 03. 1987 allegedly made huge investments by raising construction thereupon. A notice under the Andhra Pradesh Land encroachment Act, 1905 was issued on it on 27. 04. 1987, wherein the company was described as an 'encroacher' of the land in question. Questioning the legality of the said notice, a writ application was filed by the appellant, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 5954 of 1987.
( 8 ) WE may observe that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant filed an application for regularization of the said land before the state, relevant recitals whereof are as under :
"we are informed by the Honourable Mandal revenue Officer that an extent of 781 sq. mtrs. Land is a government land in the Workshop and that the possession thereof must be delivered to the Government. It is respectfully submitted that the workshop has been functioning for last 10 years at the aforesaid S. Nos. and the portion said to be belonging to the Government is abetting the main road and if the same is taken over by the Government it will make impossible for us to have an access to the workshop apart therefrom it will not be possible for us to utilize the workshop. In the circumstances we request you to kindly Sir, to regularize the ownership of that land and we are agreeable to pay a reasonable compensation to the government for the land abutting the main road and the land to our extent of 1485. 08 sq. mtrs. in the same survy no. which is lying vacant because if it is allotted to somebody then we will not have our access to our workshop. If the land is not allotted to us the entire business of the company will be greatly affected and many families, depended will be put to great loss and hardship. In this connection we also wish to bring to your kind attention that the land was initially inhabitable and unusable being full of boulders and rocks a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
