MOTILAL B. NAIK, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the Mandal revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, ranga Reddy District, seeking a Writ of mandamus declaring the judgment in l. G. A. NO 21 of 1996 dated 24-9-1996 on the file of the first respondent - Special Court under A. P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, hyderabad, as illegal and to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) FEW facts which are germane for the adjudication of the issues involved in this writ Petition are traced hereunder: petitioner filed L. G. O. No. 317 of 1988 on the file of the Land Grabbing Tribunal-cum- district Judge, (for short the Tribunal ) ranga Reddy district at Saroornagar, hyderabad alleging that the second respondent herein grabbed Ac. 1-21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 86 of Lingojiguda at saroornagar Mandal which is the government land without any authority. It was further pleaded that the said land is covered by G. O. Ms. No. 1122 dated 21-6-1961 and the land in Lingojiguda village is included in Annexure-4 at item no. 16 of list of Villages falling under urban spread area where assignment is totally prohibited in G. O. Ms. No. 1409 dated 19-8-1978 and the said land is also meant for public purpose. Therefore, the petitioner prayed the Tribunal to declare the second respondent as land grabber and order his eviction. ( 3 ) THE second respondent filed his counter in L. G. O. P. No. 317 of 1988 inter alia, admitting that the schedule land though being the Government land, is surrounded by his lands and therefore, he became eligible to seek assignment of that land in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1406 dated 25-7-1958 and further pleaded that he has also filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction which is pending adjudication. ( 4 ) AFTER trial, the Tribunal by judgment dated 20-4-1995 held that the schedule land is a Government land and directed the second respondent to deliver possession of the same to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent preferred L. G. A. No. 20 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderbad (for short "the Special Court" ). Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent preferred L. G. A. No. 20 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderbad (for short "the Special Court" ). The Special court by its order dated 18-9-1995 without deciding the said appeal on merits/framed the following issues and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for enquiry and disposal in accordance with law, viz. , (1) Whether the schedule property is required for public purpose? (2) In the event of the schedule property not being required for public purpose, what is the value of the said property, as on the date of the order having regard to the user to which it is put to? ( 5 ) THE Tribunal accordingly went into the above issues framed by the Special court and by an order dated 6-3-1996 held issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner; and on issue No. 2 though the Tribunal quantified the compensation to be paid, but directed the second respondent to deliver possession of the property within two months from the date of that order. ( 6 ) ASSAILING the said order dated 6-3-1996 made by the Tribunal, the second respondent preferred L. G. A. No. 21 of 1996 before the Special Court. The Special Court by order dated 24-9-1996 while agreeing with the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent is a land grabber but required the second respondent herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,50,000. 00 being the market value of the schedule land, within two months from the date of the said order in the Special Court upon which he is entitled to continue in possession of the schedule land failing which the concerned revenue Divisional Officer was directed to take delivery of the schedule land and intimate compliance. It is this judgment of the Special Court in L. G. A. No. 21 of 1996 dated 24-9-1996 which is assailed before us in this Writ Petition on various grounds. It is this judgment of the Special Court in L. G. A. No. 21 of 1996 dated 24-9-1996 which is assailed before us in this Writ Petition on various grounds. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, learned government Pleader for Assignment raised an important issue before us about the competency of the Tribunal as well as the special Court to determine the market value of the land when it declares, that the land in question is grabbed by the respondent only with an intention to permitting land owners to receive market value so determined, in lieu of the land,. which shall be retained by the land grabber. Learned Government pleader stated that the Special Court has misinterpreted the provisions under section 8 (7) of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and came to an erroneous conclusion that the second respondent is entitled to continue in possession of the schedule land on payment of the market value as determined by the tribunal. It is argued that the purport of the provisions under Section 8 (7) of the Act is only to compensate the owner of the land which is occupied illegally by the land grabber for the said period of grabbing and only to this extent Tribunal or Special Court is empowered to determine and fix compensation and direct the land grabber to pay the same to the land owner. Learned government Pleader, therefore, pleads that in view of the erroneous interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act by the special Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) INCIDENTALLY, learned Government pleader has also raised another ground about the Special Court remitting the matter to the Tribunal while framing the issues, viz. , (1) Whether the schedule property is required for public purpose? and (2) In the event of the schedule property not being required for public purpose, what is the value of the said property, as on the date of the order hiving regard to the user to which it is put to? and requiring the tribunal to give a finding on these issues, contending that the Tribunal or Special court are not vested with the power of examining an issue as to whether the schedule property in question is required for public purpose. and requiring the tribunal to give a finding on these issues, contending that the Tribunal or Special court are not vested with the power of examining an issue as to whether the schedule property in question is required for public purpose. Learned Government pleader also submitted that the power to decide whether a particular land is required for public purpose or not is vested only with the State Government and pleaded that the findings of the Tribunal as well as the Special Court in this regard cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) ON the contrary, Sri A. Narasimha reddy, Counsel for the second respondent submitted that on remitting the matter by the Special Court to the Tribunal while framing necessary issues as indicated above, the Tribunal though fixed the market value at Rs. 15,50,000. 00 of the schedule land but did not permit the second respondent to pay the same for retaining the schedule land. As against such an order, the second respondent preferred LGA No. 21/96 before the Special Court and the Special court by its judgment dated 24-9-1996 set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that the second respondent is entitled to seek retention of the schedule property on payment of Rs. 15,50,000. 00 which is the market value of the schedule land as determined by the Tribunal. Counsel submitted that the second respondent has already deposited the said amount in the special Court and at this point of time if the impugned order passed by the Special court is disturbed, the second respondent would be put to immense hardship and therefore, pleaded for dismissal of this Writ petition. ( 10 ) THOUGH varied contentions are raised before us on behalf of the petitioner and the second respondent, in our view, two important issues emerge for consideration before this Court, viz. , (1) Whether the Land Grabbing tribunal or the Special Court constituted under the A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, is empowered to determine the market value of the grabbed land and direct the complainant before it to receive such market value from the land grabber in lieu of the grabbed land? (2) Whether the Land Grabbing tribunal or the Special Court has the power to examine the question as to whether a particular grabbed land is required for public purpose or not? (2) Whether the Land Grabbing tribunal or the Special Court has the power to examine the question as to whether a particular grabbed land is required for public purpose or not? ( 11 ) IN order to appreciate these issues, it is necessary for us to examine the definitions of land grabbing , land grabber as appearing in Section 2 and few other relevant provisions of the A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. ( 12 ) SUB-SECTION (D) of Section 2 of the Act defines land grabber to mean "a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the abovementioned acts, and also includes the successors-in- interest". Sub-section (e) of Section 2 defines land grabbing to mean "every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licence agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures; and the term to grab land shall be construed accordingly". Section 4 of the Act deals with prohibition of land grabbing. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 of the Act provides that no person shall commit or cause to be committed land grabbing. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the act postulates that any person who, on or after the commencement of this Act, continues to be in occupation, otherwise than as a lawful tenant, of a grabbed land belonging to the Government, local authority, religious or charitable institution or endowment including a wakf, or other private person, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. Section 5 of the Act provides for penalty for other offences in connection with land grabbing. Section 7 of the Act provides for constitution of Special Court and Section 7-A lays down about the constitution of Special Tribunals and their powers. Section 8 of the Act stipulates the procedure and powers of the Special courts. Sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the act provides thus: it shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass such order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It may award compensation in terms of money 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 the grabbed land to its rightful owner. The amount of compensation and profits, so awarded and costs of re-delivery, if any, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue in case the Government is the owner, or as a 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 sub-section, give to the land grabber an opportunity of making his representation or of adducing evidence, if any, in this regard, and consider such representation and evidence. ( 13 ) UNDER the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, excepting the provision under sub-section (7) of section (8) which empowers the Special court to "pass such order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice and may award compensation in terms of money for wrongful possession of the land grabbed", there is no other provision in the entire Act which empowers the Special Court to determine the market value of the grabbed land and to permit the land grabber to retain the land and pay such market value of the grabbed land to the owner. While interpreting the provisions of this Act, the intention of the legislature has to be borne in mind for the purpose for which this enactment is made. While interpreting the provisions of this Act, the intention of the legislature has to be borne in mind for the purpose for which this enactment is made. For better understanding of the intention of the Legislature in bringing out this Act, the statement of Objects and Reasons of this act have to be looked into which are as under:"it has come to the notice of the government that there are organized attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab either by force, or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf or any other private person. The land grabbers are forming bogus Cooperative Housing Societies or setting up fictitious claims and including in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain section of people, resulting in large scale accumulation of the unaccounted wealth. As public order is also adversely affected thereby now and then by such unlawful activities of land grabbers in the State, particularly in respect of urban and urbanisable lands, it was felt necessary to arrest and curb such unlawful activities immediately by enacting a special law in that regard". ( 14 ) HAVING made this enactment with the above objective and having made provisions for constitution of Special Courts and Tribunals to arrest and curb the unlawful activity of land grabbing by unscrupulous elements, the Legislature would not have visualized a situation when the Special Courts and Tribunals dealing with the land grabbing offences would permit the land grabber, to retain the land so grabbed by him, and pay the market value of such land as compensation to the original owner in lieu of the land. If such a determination is made by the Land grabbing Tribunals and Special Court for payment of compensation to the land owner in lieu of the grabbed land by the land grabber, it would tantamount to assuming such powers which are not vested in them under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. If such a determination is made by the Land grabbing Tribunals and Special Court for payment of compensation to the land owner in lieu of the grabbed land by the land grabber, it would tantamount to assuming such powers which are not vested in them under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. A plain reading of the provisions under sub-section (7) of section 8 of the Act would make it dear that the Special Court may award compensation in terms of money 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 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. This provision cannot be read to mean that it empowers the Special court to permit the land grabber to pay the market value of the grabbed land to the righful owner in lieu of the land and retain possession thereof. If such a meaning is assigned to the said provision, it would only encourage the land grabbing activity and every land grabber mercifully grabs vacant land wherever available and would willingly come forward to pay the market value of such land as determined by the tribunals. If such an interpretation is to be given to the provision under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act, it not only contravenes the "statement of Objects and reasons" of the Act but also defeats the very purpose for which the Act is enacted i. e. , to arrest and curb the illegal activity of land grabbing. Section 17-B of the Act provides guidelines for interpretation of the act which says that "the Schedule shall constitute the guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of this act. " The schedule consists of the statement of Objects and Reasons to the a. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The main purpose of this enactment is to arrest and curb the illegal activity of land grabbing. ( 15 ) IT has been held by Courts, when a question arises as to the meaning given to a certain provision in a statute is to be interpreted, the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. ( 15 ) IT has been held by Courts, when a question arises as to the meaning given to a certain provision in a statute is to be interpreted, the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. It has been also held that the object of the construction of a statute being to ascertain the will of the Legislature, it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. Therefore, while interpreting a statute, hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly are to be avoided. The general principle which has to be borne in mind is that when there is ambiguity in interpretation of the meaning of a statute, the intention of the Legislature in enacting such provision has to be gathered by reading that Statute as a whole. If there is no ambiguity, the plain meaning of the rule or section is to be inferred. ( 16 ) IN the instant case, what all the provision under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act says is that if the Special Court finds a particular person on enquiry, as land grabber, the owner of such land, which was grabbed has to be compensated, as he has been deprived of his right to enjoy such land. The first sentence of sub-section (7), viz. , "it shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass such order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice" has to be read not in isolation but harmoniously and in conjunction with the next sentence viz. , "it may award compensation in terms of money 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 the grabbed land to its rightful owner". On a combined reading of both sentences, it is apparent that the said provision is enacted empowering the Special Court to direct the land grabber to pay compensation which shall not be less than the market value of such land, to the land owner for illegally retaining such land. On a combined reading of both sentences, it is apparent that the said provision is enacted empowering the Special Court to direct the land grabber to pay compensation which shall not be less than the market value of such land, to the land owner for illegally retaining such land. It is also clear that the legislature never intended to confer the power to determine the market value of such grabbed land either on the Land grabbing Tribunal or the Special Court for the purpose of payment of such value of the land in lieu of the land to be retained by the land grabber. As could be discernible from the "statement of Objects and Reasons" of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, it is meant to arrest and curb the illegal activity of land grabbing by unscrupulous elements. It is protective Legislation in favour of land owners but not otherwise. It is intended to obviate the difficulties and hardship faced by the land owners whose land is grabbed illegally. Instead of providing succor to the hapless land owners, if the provisions of the Act are to be interpreted in a manner which is advantageous to the land grabbers, it would encourage the activity of land grabbing thereby frustrating the very object of the act itself. ( 17 ) HAVING regard to our above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the special Court constituted under the provisions of the Act except having the competency of determining the compensation to be paid to the land owner by the land grabber for wrongful possession, has no power or authority to determine the market value of the grabbed land and direct the land owner to receive such market value from the land grabber in lieu of the grabbed land to be retained by the land grabber. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. ( 18 ) THIS takes us to the 2nd issue as to whether the Special Court or Tribunals are competent to decide whether the land so grabbed is required for a public purpose. ( 19 ) THE functions and powers of the special Court as well as the Land Grabbing tribunals are provided under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act, respectively. ( 19 ) THE functions and powers of the special Court as well as the Land Grabbing tribunals are provided under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act, respectively. As seen from the powers and functions of the special Courts as well as the Land Grabbing tribunals, their domain is specified inasmuch as they are only entitled to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations made in the complaint prove that the respondent therein is a land grabber or not. If the complainant is able to prove the allegations, then the competent tribunal/special Court is bound to order eviction of the land grabber, besides ordering him to pay compensation which is not less than market value to the land owner for wrongful possession of the grabbed land. Neither the scheme of the land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 nor the provisions contemplated thereunder, empower the land Grabbing Tribunals or special Court, to go into the question as to whether a particular land is required for public purpose or not, which domain is exclusively vested with the competent government. Therefore, we also hold that the Special Court is not vested with such powers to direct the Tribunals to ascertain whether the land grabbed is required for public purpose or not. ( 20 ) HAVING regard to our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we set aside the impugned order made by the Special Court in L. G. A. No. 21 of 1996 dated 24-9-1996. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.