Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 660 (AP)

Eadi Shankaraiah v. State Of A. P.

2001-07-02

G.ROHINI, MOTILAL B.NAIK

body2001
MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) WP No. 27803 of 1997 is filed by the respondent in LGC No. 25 of 1988 before the Special court under the Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short "the Special Court") seeking to set aside the judgment dated 15-9-1997 made by the Special Court in LGC No. 25 of 1988 on various grounds. ( 2 ) WP No. 18345 of 1998 is filed by the respondent in LGC No. 25 of 1988 before the Special Court seeking to set aside the judgment dated 4-5-1998 made by the special Court in LGC No. 25 of 1988 on various grounds. ( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner, we briefly state few facts, which are germane for disposal of these two writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, charminar Mandal, filed a complaint under section 8 of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") before the Special Court against the writ petitioners herein alleging that the writ petitioner grabbed an extent of Ac. 7. 16 gts. of land in Sy. No. 62/1 TS No. 1, Block, e , ward No. 264 of Bandlaguda village of charminar Revenue Mandal, out of total extent of Ac. 36. 03 guntas of land in sy. No. 62/1, and prayed the Special Court to evict the writ petitioner from the lands, which are under his illegal possession and to pass appropriate compensation also for wrongful possession. ( 5 ) IT is alleged in the complaint that the writ petitioner constructed a house, poultry farm, cattle shed, labour quarters in an extent of Ac. 6. 16 gts. of the application schedule land and also raising crops in the said land. The revenue records i. e. , Khasra pahanies and the Town Survey Register show that the land in Sy. No. 62/1 is registered as "suram Tank", which is a Government source of irrigation, being valuable and situated adjacent to the road leading to pahadi Sheriff main road which leads to the National High-Way No. 7. It is also alleged that the writ petitioner has grabbed the Government land and is in occupation of the land for about 14 years and the market value of the lands within the vicinity is Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. It is also alleged that the writ petitioner has grabbed the Government land and is in occupation of the land for about 14 years and the market value of the lands within the vicinity is Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre and if they are made plots for housing purposes, the price will be at the rate of Rs. 50/- to rs. 100/- per sq. yard. It is also alleged that the land under occupation of the writ petitioner would fetch more than Rs. 6. 00 lakhs and mesne profits for the last 14 years would come to Rs. 2. 52 lakhs. The complainant prayed the Special Court for eviction of the writ petitioner from the application schedule land while restoring possession to the Government. ( 6 ) THE application was contested by the writ petitioner, being the respondent, filing a detailed counter inter alia pointing out that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the writ petitioner-respondent is not a land grabber within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the act. It is also contended in the counter that the applicant-Government seeking to declare the petitioner herein as a land grabber without looking to the fact that he has been in continuous possession of the land for more than 30 years and paying land revenue to the authorities. It is further stated in the counter that the structures were raised by him in the land in sy. Nos. 62/2 and 62/3, which are patta lands and he has been paying property tax for the structures and also obtained necessary pass books for the land in question from the competent authorities and pleaded that he cannot be declared as a land grabber. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the rival pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the petition schedule land is Government land? 2. Whether the respondent has grabbed the Government land? 1 To what relief? ( 8 ) ON behalf of the complainant- applicant i. e. , State of Andhra Pradesh, two witnesses were examined and Exs. Al to A15 were marked. On behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent, two witnesses were examined, RW1 being the writ petitioner-respondent himself and RW2 being a retired Surveyor and Exs. B1 to B11 were marked. 1 To what relief? ( 8 ) ON behalf of the complainant- applicant i. e. , State of Andhra Pradesh, two witnesses were examined and Exs. Al to A15 were marked. On behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent, two witnesses were examined, RW1 being the writ petitioner-respondent himself and RW2 being a retired Surveyor and Exs. B1 to B11 were marked. ( 9 ) THE Special Court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the application schedule land is Government land and that the writ petitioner has grabbed the lands in question. With regard to the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent that he has been in continuous possession of the application schedule land for more than 30 years, the Special Court held that there is no worthy evidence in support of the claim of the writ petitioner to accept his stand and ordered eviction of the writ petitioner from the application schedule land, by judgment dated 15-9-1997, which is the subject- matter of challenge before us in WP no. 27803 of l997. ( 10 ) INSOFAR as the other writ petition i. e. , WP No. 18345 of 1998 is concerned, the special Court determined the compensation to be paid by the writ petitioner to the government at Rs. 70,000/- as provided under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act, and ordered the writ petitioner to pay the above compensation to the Government, by judgment dated 4-5-1998 in LGC No. 25 of 1988, against which the WP No. 18345 of 1998 is filed. ( 11 ) SINCE the grievances made in these two writ petitions are inter-linked, they are disposed of by the following common order. ( 12 ) SRI T. Seshagiri Rao learned counsel for the writ petitioner has raised three important issues before us for consideration. 1. The petitioner can never be treated as a land grabber. 2. As there is no proper definition to the word grabbing under the Act, the petitioner cannot be defined as a land grabber. 3. When the Mandal Revenue Officer himself has admitted that the petitioner has been in occupation of the government land and patta pass book has also been given to him, the special Court ought not have ordered eviction of the petitioner from the application schedule land and ordered payment of compensation. 3. When the Mandal Revenue Officer himself has admitted that the petitioner has been in occupation of the government land and patta pass book has also been given to him, the special Court ought not have ordered eviction of the petitioner from the application schedule land and ordered payment of compensation. ( 13 ) WE have also heard the learned government Pleader for Assignment, who justified the orders made by the Special court. ( 14 ) IN the wake of the above divergent submissions, the point that arises for consideration is: whether the petitioner could be termed as a land grabber and if so, the orders passed by the Special Court are sustainable? ( 15 ) IN order to appreciate these contentions, it is necessary for us to examine the definitions of land grabbing and land grabber as appearing in Section 2 of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act, 1982. ( 16 ) 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 unauthorised structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such land s rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned 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 unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or given such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures; and the term to grab land shall be construed accordingly". ( 17 ) IT is contended by Sri T. Seshagiri rao, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act has not provided a definite meaning for the word "grabbing". According to the Counsel, the dictionary meaning of the word "grabbing" is to grasp or seize suddenly and eagerly to appropriate to oneself in a rapacious or unscrupulous manner and it means a quick, sudden clutch, grasp, seizer or attempt to seize. Elaborating his submissions on this aspect, Counsel submitted that land grabbing involves sudden and eager seizing in a rapacious manner. Encroachment of Government land for the purpose of cultivation, even without authorisation cannot be called an unscrupulous act and cannot be equated with the act of land grabbing. According to the Counsel, the finding of the Special Court that the petitioner is a land grabber is unsustainable. ( 18 ) A plain reading of the provisions under clause (d) of Section 2 and clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act would not give scope for any ambiguity for understanding the meaning given by the Legislature to these provisions. Every activity of grabbing of land whether belonging to Government, private person, endowment, local body etc. , by a person or group of persons without any lawful entitlement or with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, could be termed as land grabbing. ( 19 ) IN view of clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act, we do not think, the submission made by the learned Counsel in this regard could be accepted. When the Legislature itself has given a meaning to the word land grabbing by treating it as one word, the same cannot be split up into two i. e. , land and grabbing by dissecting them. Separate meanings cannot be given to the word land and grabbing , as the word land grabbing is used to connote that the activity undertaken is "land grabbing". The object of the enactment is to arrest the activity of land grabbing. ( 20 ) 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. ( 20 ) 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. It has been held by Courts, when a question arises as to the meaning to be 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 also been held that the object of construction of a statute being to ascertain the Will of the Legislature, it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. 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 a provision has to be gathered by reading that statute as a whole and if there is no ambiguity, the plain meaning of the rule or section is to be inferred. Any devication thereof would result in legislation by the Courts which is not the job of the Courts. ( 21 ) THE alleged activity of the petitioner is "land grabbing" but not grabbing of any other article or commodity. When the allegation itself is that the petitioner has indulged in land grabbing activity, and the legislature has provided meaning for the activity of "land grabbing" under clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act, recourse need not be taken to the dictionary to find the meaning for the word "grabbing" which has no relevancy in the Scheme of the Act as an independent entity. ( 22 ) INSOFAR as the submission that the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the application schedule land for more than 30 years and has been paying tax and patta pass books are also given to him, the Special Court in para 12 of its judgment dated 15-9-1997 has found that the disputed land is a part and parcel of "suram Cheruvu", which is a Government source of irrigation. It is also found by the special Court that "the respondent-writ petitioner at para 6 of his counter has categorically admitted that the application schedule land is "sikam Talab", that every year in the rainy season the schedule land is flooded with tank water and whenever water recedes, he is able to get some meager crop over the land and that from this statement of the respondent-writ petitioner it is very clear that the "suram tank" of which the application schedule land forms part, is a source of irrigation for the lands of the registered Ayacutdars of the tank and the use of the tank bed would not only cause damage to the tank, but also adversely affect the interests of the ayacutdars". ( 23 ) AT para 14 of its order dated 15-9-1997, the Special Court has further found that Ex. A1, extract of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, shows that the possession of the land is with the government and in Cols. 33 and 34 of Ex. A2 extract of pahani for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the schedule land is shown as government land. The Special Court further found that in Col. No. 2 of Ex. A3 extract of pahani for the years 1974-75 and 1981-82 the schedule land is shown as "gairan Suram cheruvu" and in Col. No. 33 of it, it is recorded that an extent of Ac. 4. 18 guntas of land was cultivated, but the name of the cultivator was not mentioned. It is also found by the Special Court that for the year 1981-82, the extents of land cultivated during the first crop and second crop seasons are shown, but the name of the cultivator is mentioned as one Mohd. Basheer and others, and accordingly held that the name of the respondent is not at all found in Exs. A1 to A3. However, the Special court found that in Ex. A4 extract of pahani for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 it is recorded that the respondent-writ petitioner has raised grass and in col No. 33 of Ex. A5 extract of pahani for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the name of the respondent is shown as cultivator, whereas in Ex. A6 extract of the pahani for the years 1979-80 and 1983-84 the name of the respondent is not mentioned. A5 extract of pahani for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the name of the respondent is shown as cultivator, whereas in Ex. A6 extract of the pahani for the years 1979-80 and 1983-84 the name of the respondent is not mentioned. ( 24 ) THE Special Court further found at para 15 of its judgment that in Ex. Al khasra pahani and Exs. A2 to A10 extracts of pahanies, the name of the writ petitioner respondent has been mentioned only for the years 1975-76 to 1980-81 and 1987-88 as a cultivator. The Special Court having found that the name of the writ petitioner- respondent being mentioned only for a limited period, his claim that he has been in continuous possession of the property for more than 30 years is without any basis and rejected the plea. In view of the finding of the Special Court that the writ petitioner has not established that he is in continuous possession of the application schedule land for 30 years, we do not think, there is any justification for us to take a different view than the view taken by the special Court in the absence of satisfactory evidence available before us. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue relating to the claim of the petitioner that he has been in continuous possession of the application schedule land for 30 years is unsustainable. ( 25 ) COMING to the other limb of argument, that the writ petitioner has been granted pattadar pass book Ex. B2 and paid land revenue under Ex. Bl land revenue receipt, dated 6-5-1968, the Special Court at para 16 of its judgment dated 15-9-1997 has found as under: "ex. B1 is the receipt dated 6-5-1968 issued by the Village Assistant to the respondent evidencing the payment of rs. 175/- towards "sivaijama" for the application schedule property for 5 years at a time. Ex. B2 is the pattadar pass book issued in the name of the respondent by the Dy. Tahsildar, Charminar Mandal, ex. B3 dated 1-4-1980 is the xerox copy of the Special Notice issued by the mch to the respondent, Exs. B4 to B7 dated 1-4-1980 are the xerox copies of Special Notices issued by the MCH, to E. Sandhya Rani, E. Venugopal, E. Ramesh and E. Shankaraiah (respondent) respectively. Ex. Tahsildar, Charminar Mandal, ex. B3 dated 1-4-1980 is the xerox copy of the Special Notice issued by the mch to the respondent, Exs. B4 to B7 dated 1-4-1980 are the xerox copies of Special Notices issued by the MCH, to E. Sandhya Rani, E. Venugopal, E. Ramesh and E. Shankaraiah (respondent) respectively. Ex. B8 is the provisional receipt issued by the MCH to E. Sharada devi for payment of Rs. 490/- by way of cheque towards property tax for the period from 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1988, whereas Ex. B9 is the provisional receipt issued by the MCH to E. Sandhya Rani, shankaraiah (respondent), E. Venugopal and Ramesh for payment of Rs. 952/- by way of cheque towards property tax, for the period from 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1988. " ( 26 ) WITH regard to the claim of the petitioner that he was given pattadar pass books in respect of the land in question and as such he cannot be treated as a land grabber, the Special Court held that the issuance of pattadar pass books covered under G. O. Ms. No. 1356 dated 5-8-1978 is not extended to the jurisdiction of Hyderabad west Taluk, and was not included in the notification issued under the said GO and accordingly held that the plea of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted. The special Court found that the Records of rights in Land Act, 1971 was not extended to Charminar Mandal, which was part and parcel of the erstwhile Hyderabad West taluq, the issuance of Ex. B2 pattadar pass book is not valid under law. Therefore, the Special Court held that granting of pattadar pass book alone would not help the petitioner to claim that he is in legal possession of the scheduled property and is not a land grabber. The Special court after elaborate discussion came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a land grabber. ( 27 ) HAVING regard to the finding of the special Court and having regard to the meaning given to the words "land grabbing" under the provisions of clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act, we are convinced that the special Court is justified in declaring the petitioner as a land grabber. The petitioner himself admits that the application schedule land is a Government land and has been in possession of the same. The petitioner himself admits that the application schedule land is a Government land and has been in possession of the same. When once the petitioner is not the owner of the land, sudden activity of grabbing need not be a factor for determining the question whether the land is grabbed in the sudden activity of grabbing. By virtue of his admission that the land is a Government land and the petitioner has been in occupation of the land, that amounts to illegal occupation of the Government land. ( 28 ) COMING to the second writ petition with regard to the determination of compensation to be paid by the writ petitioner to the Government as provided under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the act, having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader, we are persuaded to agree that the special Court had not made sufficient exercise to arrive at such figure. In fact sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act provides as under:"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 redelivery, 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 subsection 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. 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 such representation and evidence. " ( 29 ) WHEN the Legislature requires the special Court to fix compensation to be paid to the owner of the land and after the special Court finds any person to be a land grabber, the course left to the Special court/tribunal is to award compensation, which shall not be less than the market value of the land grabbed. The land grabbed in this case is Ac. 7. 16 guntas. The special Court, in our view, should have got the value of the land properly fixed and awarded compensation as is provided under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act. However, the Tribunal has made some guess work and determined compensation at rs. 70,000/-, which in our view, is not in tune with the requirements provided under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act. On this ground, we set aside the order dated 4-5-1998, impugned in WP No. 18345 of 1998 and remit the matter to the special Court to determine the compensation as provided under the Scheme of the Act. ( 30 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we dismiss WP No. 27803 of 1997. WP no. 18345 of 1998 is allowed setting aside the order dated 4-5-1998 made by the Special court and the matter is remitted to the special Court for fresh determination as to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the writ petitioner to the Government as required under sub-section (7) of Section 8 of the Act. The Special Court shall determine the quantum of compensation after ascertaining the market value of the application schedule land, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.