Case: M/S. Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer

been specifically stated therein, which is to the following effect : “4. It is submitted that the Respondent Company previously known as M/s Mahalaxmi Motors Pvt. Limited changed its name as Jublee Honda Motors. The land encroached by the respondent is surveyed by the Mandal Revenue Officer through Mandal Surveyor and found that the respondent not only encroached 6946 sq. mtrs. (Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No. 94 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003) of Government land in Sy. No. 82 of Bowenpally, but also encroached an extent of 842 sq. mtrs. (Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No. 94 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003) Government lands in Sy. No. 157/1 of Thokatta Village as shown in the sketch. The Respondent illegally encroached the application scheduled property and construed sheds and running Mechanical workshop for vehicles. The company constructed workshop and compound wall of an extent of 6946 Sq. Mts. (Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No. 94 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003) in Sy. No. 82/p of Bowenpally and an extent of 842 Sq. Mtrs. (Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No. 94 of 2003 dated 13.06.,2003) in Sy. No.157/1P of Thokatta Village. The application schedule land is valuable land abutting Highway and it is required for public purpose.The cause of action arose when the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued notice on 27./4.87 to the Respondent under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act and noticed that the Respondent illegally encroached the Government land.It is submitted that the Application Scheduled land situated abutting to the Hashamathpet Road which is a link road between two National High Ways running from Hyderabad to Karimnagar and Nizamabad, and it is very valuable property and is required for public purpose. The market value of the land is Rs. 5000/- per Sq. Mts. The Respondent wrongfully using the Government land for Commercial purpose from 1985 and the Respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20/- Sq. Mts. Per month from 1985 till the date of disposal of the LGC as means profits/compensation to the Government.” 42. Thus, not only the history of litigation but also area of encroachment was stated. A sketch map showing the same was annexed thereto. The fact that the appellant had made constructions illegally and had been running a workshop was specifically pleaded. One of the reliefs prayed for therein, inter alia, was to declare that the appellant was a land grabber. It is, therefore, not a case where it can be said that the respondent failed to plead the requisite ingredients of the definition of the term ‘land grabbing’. 43. We have noticed hereinbefore the findings of the learned Special Court. The Special Court took note of the aforementioned contentions of the parties hereto and arrived at a definite finding, having regard to the history of the litigation between the parties, that the appellant was a land grabber. 44. The application filed by the appellant before the State Government for regularization of the land although may not be determinative of the issue as to whether it is a land grabber or not could be taken into consideration for a limited purpose, namely, admission or acknowledgement on its part in regard to the title of the State. It was possible for the appellant to file an application for regularization of land without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the pending proceedings, but having regard to the decisions rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in two writ petitions, it would be fair to presume that the appellant filed the said application knowing fully well as to where it stood. Once it had taken a specified stand knowing fully well that it had no right, title and interest in or over the land in question, it cannot in law turn round and contend that the same was not binding on it. Doctrine of estoppel in a situation of this nature, in our opinion, would squarely apply. An abstract belief on the part of the appellant that its vendor had a marketable title and it was getting a good title to the land is not decisive. Whether any action was taken by the authorities of the State in regard to the possession of Ramender Reddy or the appellant, in our opinion, is wholly irrelevant inasmuch Ramender Reddy and consequently the appellant had no title over the property nor acquired any title by prescription. Law does not contemplate any vacuum in the title. Either the State had the title or the appellant and its predecessor. 45. Submission of Mr. Dewan that it was obligatory on the part of the First Respondent to make averments that the appellant illegally, forcibly, unscrupulously or with criminal intention of grabbing the Government land entered upon the Government land, in our opinion, in the fact situation obtaining herein, was not necessary. Pleadings of the parties, it is now well-settled are not to be construed in a pedantic manner. [See Des Raj and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. [2007 (3) SCALE 371]. 46. An averment that the appellant had been in unlawful possession itself is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the said Act in view of the decision of this Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra). Keeping in view the fact that the appellant or the Ramender Reddy had no title and consequently he could not acquire any title, all other contentions raised on its behalf, in our opinion, pales into insignificance. The fact of the matter squarely covers the ingredients of Section 2(e) of the Act as interpreted by this Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra). 47. Submission of the learned counsel that even an order dated 03.08.2007 is not a speaking order cannot be considered in this application. However, from a perusal of the said order, it is evident that therein all relevant circumstances have been taken into consideration. Recommendations made by the Collector or the Commissioner for regularization of the land are not binding on the State.48. We, therefore,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The cause of action arose when the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued notice on 27./4.87 to the Respondent under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act and noticed that the Respondent illegally encroached the Government land.It is submitted that the Application Scheduled land situated abutting to the Hashamathpet Road which is a link road between two National High Ways running from Hyderabad to Karimnagar and Nizamabad, and it is very valuable property and is required for public purpose. The market value of the land is Rs. 5000/- per Sq. Mts. The Respondent wrongfully using the Government land for Commercial purpose from 1985 and the Respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20/- Sq. Mts. Per month from 1985 till the date of disposal of the LGC as means profits/compensation to thenot only the history of litigation but also area of encroachment was stated. A sketch map showing the same was annexed thereto. The fact that the appellant had made constructions illegally and had been running a workshop was specifically pleaded. One of the reliefs prayed for therein, inter alia, was to declare that the appellant was a land grabber. It is, therefore, not a case where it can be said that the respondent failed to plead the requisite ingredients of the definition of the term ‘landhave noticed hereinbefore the findings of the learned Special Court. The Special Court took note of the aforementioned contentions of the parties hereto and arrived at a definite finding, having regard to the history of the litigation between the parties, that the appellant was a landof Mr. Dewan that it was obligatory on the part of the First Respondent to make averments that the appellant illegally, forcibly, unscrupulously or with criminal intention of grabbing the Government land entered upon the Government land, in our opinion, in the fact situation obtaining herein, was not necessary. Pleadings of the parties, it is now well-settled are not to be construed in a pedantic manner. [See Des Raj and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. [2007 (3) SCALEaverment that the appellant had been in unlawful possession itself is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the said Act in view of the decision of this Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra). Keeping in view the fact that the appellant or the Ramender Reddy had no title and consequently he could not acquire any title, all other contentions raised on its behalf, in our opinion, pales into insignificance. The fact of the matter squarely covers the ingredients of Section 2(e) of the Act as interpreted by this Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapujiof the learned counsel that even an order dated 03.08.2007 is not a speaking order cannot be considered in this application. However, from a perusal of the said order, it is evident that therein all relevant circumstances have been taken into consideration. Recommendations made by the Collector or the Commissioner for regularization of the land are not binding on the State.