9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to call for a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a case under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. 2. Whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to publish a notification in the Gazette notifying the fact of cognizance of a case under the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Mandatory Report from Mandal Revenue Officer The appellants argued that Sections 7A and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act do not mandate the Special Tribunal or Special Court to call for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a case. They contended that Rule 6(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, which states that the Special Court or Tribunal "may" refer the application for local inspection or verification, indicates discretion rather than obligation. The respondents, however, argued that the term "may" in Rule 6(1) should be interpreted as "shall," making it mandatory for the Special Tribunal or Special Court to call for the Mandal Revenue Officer's report. They relied on judicial precedents that suggest the word "may" can imply a mandatory requirement depending on the context. Upon examining the context, the Supreme Court noted that the object of Rule 6 is to assist the Special Tribunal or Special Court in arriving at a correct decision. The Court held that if the truth of the statements made in the application can be ascertained through other means, such as oral and documentary evidence, it is not mandatory to refer the application to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, the Court concluded that there is no compelling duty on the Special Tribunal or Special Court to call for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer. Issue 2: Mandatory Gazette Notification The appellants argued that the requirement to publish a notification in the Gazette under Rule 7 of the Rules and the proviso to Section 7A(4) and Section 8(6) of the Act should not be considered mandatory. They cited precedents where the word "shall" was interpreted as directory rather than mandatory. The respondents countered that the publication of notice in the Gazette is mandatory to ensure that all interested parties are informed and can protect their interests. They argued that this requirement is in the public interest and cannot be waived. The Supreme Court held that the publication of notice in the Gazette is indeed mandatory. The Court explained that the purpose of this requirement is to notify all persons who may have an interest in the land, thereby ensuring that they have an opportunity to appear before the Special Tribunal or Special Court to protect their interests. However, the Court also noted that if a person who claims title, ownership, or lawful possession of the land is already a party to the proceedings and has had the opportunity to participate, they cannot challenge the proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with the Gazette notification requirement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for further consideration. The High Court was directed to determine whether a reference to the Mandal Revenue Officer was necessary to ascertain the truth of the statements made in the applications and to arrive at a just decision. The High Court was also instructed to consider the writ petitions on their merits. No costs were awarded.
|
