2009 (3) TMI 1073 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Special Tribunal and/or Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
2. Definition and scope of "land grabbing" and "land grabber."
3. Powers and procedures of the Special Court and Special Tribunal.
4. Determination of adverse possession within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and Special Tribunal.
5. Conflict in previous judgments regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court and Special Tribunal on adverse possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Special Tribunal and/or Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982:
The Act was enacted to prohibit land grabbing activities in Andhra Pradesh, including lands belonging to the Government, local authorities, religious or charitable institutions, and private persons. The Act constitutes Special Courts and Tribunals with wide jurisdiction to handle cases of land grabbing, making them substitutes for civil courts and appellate authorities. The Special Court and Tribunal have both civil and criminal jurisdiction, and their procedures are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to the Act's provisions.

2. Definition and scope of "land grabbing" and "land grabber":
Section 2(d) defines "land grabber" as a person or group who commits land grabbing, including those who aid, abet, or finance such activities. Section 2(e) defines "land grabbing" as the illegal possession of land without lawful entitlement, including creating illegal tenancies or constructing unauthorized structures. Section 3 declares land grabbing unlawful, and Section 4 imposes penalties for such activities.

3. Powers and procedures of the Special Court and Special Tribunal:
The Special Court, constituted under Section 7, has the power to make regulations for case procedures. Section 7A empowers the Special Tribunal to try cases not taken by the Special Court and pass necessary orders. Section 8 details the procedure and powers of the Special Court, including taking cognizance of land grabbing cases and determining title and ownership. The Special Court can also award compensation and order the re-delivery of grabbed land. Sections 9 and 10 provide for the application of the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure and the burden of proof in land grabbing cases.

4. Determination of adverse possession within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and Special Tribunal:
The key issue is whether the question of adverse possession falls within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and Tribunal. The Act confers wide jurisdiction on these bodies to determine questions of title and possession, including adverse possession. The Special Court and Tribunal have the trappings of a civil court and can handle complicated questions of title. The legal fiction created by the Act allows these bodies to act as both civil courts and courts of sessions.

5. Conflict in previous judgments regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court and Special Tribunal on adverse possession:
There was an apparent conflict between the decisions in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji, the court held that the Special Court could determine adverse possession, while in N. Srinivasa Rao, the court opined that the Special Court had no jurisdiction over adverse possession, which fell within the domain of civil courts. The present judgment resolves this conflict by affirming that the Special Court and Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine adverse possession, as they possess extensive powers and follow the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Special Court and Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, have the jurisdiction to determine questions of adverse possession. The judgment in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji was upheld as laying down the correct law, while the decision in N. Srinivasa Rao was overruled. The case was remitted to an appropriate Bench for determination on merits.