Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK
Chenna Basvanna - Appellant
Versus
Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-30-02
Land Laws - Civil Matter – Civil Suit - Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Section 8 sub section (1-A) - Eviction - Recovery of Possession - Contended that whereas proviso to sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 provides that applicant should be heard before taking cognizance of a case, it does not provide any opportunity of hearing to alleged land grabber before taking cognizance - Contention is that plea of petitioner is not properly dealt with by Special Court in the impugned order - But question for our consideration is whether this Court would be justified in setting aside order of Special court impugned in writ petition even assuming that Special Court has not dealt with that plea properly as contended by Sri Venkatramana - Answer to question would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case - If Court having regard to facts and circumstances of a case is not satisfied that Special court was not justified in taking cognizance of case, on that ground it can set aside order of Special Court - On other hand, if Court is satisfied that Special Court was justified in taking cognizance of case having regard to facts and circumstances of case - It would not set aside order of Special court only on ground that Special court has not dealt with question of taking cognizance specifically or on ground that reasons stated by special Court to take cognizance are not sound - In instant case, in first instance, petitioner on appearance did not make any interlocutory application before Special Court raising plea that L.G,C instituted by applicant is not maintainable having regard to extent and value of land and praying - Special court to decide that question in first instance - It is true that petitioner raised a contention in counter affidavit that special Court does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of case on ground that extent and value of application schedule land is not substantial and that contention was considered by Special court - Court only on ground that objection was not dealt with by special Court as a preliminary issue, court cannot set aside order of special Court without examining question whether there was justification for Special Court to take cognizance having regard to facts and circumstances of case - In this case, we are satisfied that having regard to facts and circumstances of case, Special court was fully justified in taking cognizance of case for reasons we presently state – Held, Court do not find relevancy of this submission in context of this case because we are not called upon to decide validity of sub-section (1-A) of section 8 - Simply because, proviso to subsection (1-A) does not require issuance of notice to alleged land grabber giving him an opportunity of being heard before Special Court takes cognizance of a case filed before it, it cannot be said that cognizance taken by Special Court is bad only on that count without anything further - It is true that at stage of taking cognizance in terms of statute, alleged land grabber will not have any opportunity of being heard or to contest that case filed before Special Court is not a fit case in respect of which cognizance can be taken. However, it is permissible for alleged land grabber on appearance to contend that Special Court ought not to have taken cognizance of case and if such a plea is urged by respondent - Land grabber on his appearance, by filing necessary application in that regard, it becomes necessary for Special Court to deal with question and record its finding - We cannot accept contention of Sri Venkatramana that special Court ought not to have taken cognizance of case, simply because, extent and value of land in question, in relative terms, are not large and high respectively - In addition to petitioner s own admission, Commissioner appointed by Special Court after surveying land found that writ petitioner was in possession of an extent of 44 Sq. Yards forming part of Plot No. 32 of which applicant is owner - It cannot be said that Special Court was not justified in taking cognizance of case and trying same - Writ Petition dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18. 8. 1998 passed in LGC No. 82 of 1996 on the file of the Special Court constituted under Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short the Act ). The petitioner who is the 1st respondent in the above LGC is held to be a land grabber within the meaning of that term as defined under clause (d) of section 2 of the Act. By the impugned order, the petitioner-1st respondent is directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the applicant schedule land to the applicant viz. , V. Hari Shankar, who is the 2nd respondent in this writ petition within a period of two months.
( 2 ) THE background facts of the case be stated briefly as under: The 2nd respondent-applicant filed L. G. C. No. 82 of 1996 under Section 8 of the Act for declaration that the writ petitioner is a land grabber in respect of the applicant schedule land, for his eviction and recovery of possession thereof. The case of the applicant is that one Ramulu was the owner of Plot no. 32 ad measuring 328 Sq. yards carved out of the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 758, 759, 763 to 767 of Uppal Kalan village, uppal Mandal and Municipality, Ranga reddy District having purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 17. 9. 1992 from the State Bank of Hyderabad Employees co-operative Housing Society Limited, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The 3rd respondent-society after purchasing the lands comprised in the aforementioned Sy. Nos converted the same into plots after obtaining lay-out sanction. The said Ramulu in turn sold Plot No. 32 to the applicant by registered sale deed dated 26. 11. 1994. The father of the writ petitioner was allotted Plot bearing no. 27 by the 3rd respondent-society which plot is abutting Plot No. 32 on the southern side. No regular sale deed was executed in respect of Plot No. 27 in favour of the father of the writ petitioner or in favour of the writ petitioner. The father of the writ petitioner died long back and the writ petitioner grabbed about 65 Sq. yards of open land forming part of Plot No. 32 and constructed a compound wall. The applicant raised dispute in respect thereof and the managing committee of the 3rd respondent-society called for a meeting of the parties, but that exercise resulted in vain. Under those circumstances, the applicant caused a legal notice dated 9. 11. 1995 to the writ petitioner to which the writ petitioner sent up a reply dated 23. 11. 1995 raising untenable pleas. Under those circumstances, the above LGC was instituted before the Special Court for the reliefs already noticed above.
( 3 ) OPPOSING the LGC, a counter was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner. In the counter, the writ petitioner stated that his father became a member of the 3rd respondent-society for seeking allotment of a Plot of land ad measuring 400 Sq. yards; the 3rd respondent-society having purchased ac. 12. 20 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 758, 759, 763 to 767 of Uppal Kalan village, Uppal mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy district converted the same into plots after obtaining lay-out sanction and allotted Plot no. 27 alongwith the house constructed thereon to his father and since then, the petitioner s father was in possession till his death on 9-11-1990 and after death, the writ petitioner has been in possesion and enjoyment thereof in his own right being a legal heir of his father. However, in the counter, the writ petitioner did not dispute title of the applicant to the he use bearing no. 17-57 situated in Plot No. 32, but he denied the extent of the land comprised in plot No. 32. The writ petitioner in his counter admitted that plot No. 32 was allotted to mr. Ramulu by the 3rd respondent-society and the same was subsequently purchased by the applicant by a registered sale deed dated 26. 11. 1994 along with the house thereon. The writ petitioner denied that he encroached or grabbed the application schedule land i. e. , Plot No. 3
SupremeToday
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
