9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, 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 befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, the Special Court upheld the finding that the disputed land was Government property. It however, did not agree with the Tribunal that the land was required for any public purpose. The Special Court then stated the premise that it was open to the Court to deny restoration of possession of the grabbed land to its owner (in this case the State Government) and in lieu of possession levy compensation on the "land grabber", in case it was satisfied that the grabbed land was not required for any public purpose. The Special Court observed that the appellant was having his lands almost around the land in question and though he had not acquired title by adverse possession, it had been in his possession for a long time. The land forming the subject matter of the proceeding was required by the appellant for the beneficial enjoyment of his other properties, Sy. Nos.84, 85, 87 and 88. Accordingly, the Special Court allowed the appellant's appeal vide order dated 24 September, 1996 and gave the following direction: "Accordingly, in the event of the appellant depositing the sum of ₹ 15,50,000/- within two months from today in this Special Court, the appellant is entitled to continue in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of the land on payment of its market value as compensation. In other words, the Tribunal or the Special Court could ask the Government to accept the market value of the grabbed land as compensation instead of restoring the Government's possession over the grabbed land. The learned counsel contended that the view taken by the High Court that the Tribunal or the Special Court did not have the power or authority to determine the market value of the grabbed land and direct the land owner to accept the value of the grabbed land as compensation in lieu of restoration of possession was contrary to law. In support of the contention, apart from an earlier judgment of the High Court (which was not cited before the Bench hearing the present matter!), he relied upon section 8(7) and certain guidelines framed under section 17-B and put in the schedule to the Act. 13. Before proceeding to examine the provisions referred to by the learned counsel, we may note that the land in question undeniably belongs to the Government and the appellant has been held to be "land grabber" within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Act. 14. The Act has a 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' that spells out i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rabbed which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to the market value of the land grabbed as on the date of the order and profits accrued from the land payable by the land grabber to the owner of the grabbed land and may direct re-delivery of the grabbed land to its rightful owner. The amount of compensation and profits, so awarded and cost of redelivery, if any, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue in case the Government is the owner, or the decree of a Civil Court, in any other case to be executed by the Special Court: Provided that the Special Court shall, before passing an order under this subsection, give to the land grabber an opportunity of making his representation or of adducing evidence, if any, in this regard, and consider every such representation and evidence." 17. From the plain and unambiguous language of the sub-section it is impossible to deduce that it empowers and authorises the Tribunal or the Special Court to allow the "land grabber" to continue in his/her illegal possession of the land on payment of its market value to the land owner. The compensation envisaged by the provision is not for continued illegal possession in future, but for wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was placed by the appellant, in C.P. Roy vs. Special Court, under A.P. Land Grabbing Act and Anr., 2000 (3) ALD 766 (D.B.). In that case a Division Bench of the High Court, in paragraph 56 of the judgment, made the following observation. "56. Section 8 of sub-section 7 of the Land Grabbing Act give powers to the Special Court that in case where it is found that the land has been grabbed, in order to see justice is done, can call upon the grabber to compensate the State by paying the market price and also damages in lieu of handing over possession. But before fixing the market value, an opportunity shall be given to the person aggrieved to make a representation or adducing evidence to determine the correct value. The said section is extracted herein: "It shall be lawful for the special court to pass such orders as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It may award compensation in terms for wrongful possession of the land grabbed which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to the market value of the land grabbed as on the date of the order and profits accrued from the land payable by the land grabber to the owner of the grabbed land and may direct re-delivery of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
