IMPORTANT POINT
It is well-settled that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine does not amount to a clear affirmation of the High Court decision and it does not constitute any binding precedent.

JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J.—

1. This appeal arises from a proceeding under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and the appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the order of the Special Court holding the appellant entitled to continue in possession over the government land under his unauthorised occupation on payment of Rs.15,50,000/- (being the market value of the land, determined by the Court, as on the date of the order), as compensation, within 2 months from the date of its order.

2. What perhaps led to the grant of leave for this appeal and what obliges us to dispose it of by writing a proper judgment is an earlier decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that took a view contrary to the view taken in the present judgment and order coming under appeal. Otherwise, the matter does not seem to merit much consideration by this Court.

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, District Ranga Reddy (Respondent in this appeal) filed an application (LGOP No. 317 of 1988) before the Land Grabbing Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy stating that the appellant had unauthorisedly encroached upon 1 Acre and 21 Guntas of Government land in Sy.No.86 of village Lingojiguda at Saroornagar Mandal. It was further stated that the land in question was covered by G.O.Ms. No.1122 dated 21/6/1961 and the land in the Lingojiguda village was mentioned at Serial No.16 in Annexure 4 of ‘list of villages’ falling under Urban spread area where assignment is totally prohibited under G.O.Ms. No.1409 dated 19/8/1978. It was also stated that the land in question was meant for public purpose. The respondent made the prayer before the Tribunal to declare the appellant as “land grabber” and direct his eviction.

4. The appellant filed his counter in which he admitted that the land forming the subject-matter of the proceeding was Government land. He, however, took the plea that the land in question was surrounded from all sides by his land and he was, therefore, eligible to seek assignment of the area under his occupation in terms of G.O.Ms. No.1406 dated 25/7/1958. He further stated that in regard to that piece of land he had instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction which was pending adjudication.

5. In the first round the Tribunal found and held that the land forming the subject-matter of the proceeding was in fact Government land and the appellant was in its unauthorised occupation. It, accordingly, directed the appellant to hand over possession of the land to the respondent. In appeal, however, the Special Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal asking it to consider whether or not, the disputed land was required for any public purpose. Further, in case it was not required for any public purpose what would be its market value, on the date of the order, having regard to the nature of its use?

6. In the second round the Tribunal, by its order dated 6 March, 1996, found and held that the land forming the subject-matter of the proceeding could be used for providing house sites to weaker sections and it was, therefore, required for public purpose. It further observed that allowing the appellant to continue in possession of the disputed land on payment of compensation would defeat the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. However, as required by the Special Court, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the market value of the land and fixed its value, as on the date of the order, at Rs.10 lakhs per Acre. In light of its findings, the Tribunal held that the disputed land could not be assigned to the appellant who was a “land grabber” and he was liable to hand over possession of the disputed land to the respondent. Hence, the Tribunal once again allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to hand over possession of the land to the Government authorities within two months f