Case: Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer &amp; Others

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 to an extent of 842 sq. mtrs. (Amended as per orders passed in LA. 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 LA. 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 Highways 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 reguiarization 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 acknowledgment 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 pedautic manner [see Des Raj and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by L. Rs. and 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.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]( 30 ) We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench in this case. The Special court exercises a jurisdiction of the Civil Court, provisions of the Code of Civil procedure being applicable. If it is a Civil Court, all questions relating to title and possession can be gone into. The proceeding can be initiated in terms of Section 4 of the said Act against a person who 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 any private person. If and when a proceeding is initiated under the said Act, the proceedee not only can raise a jurisdictional questions but can also raise questions relating to his title and possession. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to how the Special court would be debarred from determining the questions raised by the parties thereto. The question as to whether the land grabber had grabbed the land which is a Government land or not ordinarily is required to be determined as on the date of filing of the application. Pendency of an application for regularization of the land, therefore, in our opinion, would not stand in the way of the State to initiate a proceeding under the Act. It is one thing to say that the question in regard to regularization of a portion of the land in question was pending before the Government in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh high Court, but it is another thing to say that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to continue the proceeding, which is otherwise validly initiated only because pendency of such an application. If and when the prayer of the land grabber for regularization of the land is allowed, he would become entitled thereto. We may, however, hasten to add that we are assuming that the State had the requisite jurisdiction to direct such31 ) Lawful entitlement on the part of a party to possess the land being the determinative factor, it is axiomatic that so long as the land grabber would not be able to show his legal entitlement to hold the land, the jurisdiction of the Special Court cannot be held to be ousted.(37 ) We would like to add that the persons purported belief that he is legally entitled to hold the land and his possession is not otherwise illegal must also be judged not only from the point of time when he entered into the possession or when he had acquired the purported title but also from the point of view as to whether by reason of determination of such a question by a competent court of law, he has been found to have no title and consequently continuance of his possession becomes illegal. If the proceedee against whom a proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of the said Act is entitled to raise the question of adverse possession, which being based on knowledge of a lawful title and declaration of the hostile title on the part of the person in possession, there does not appear to be any reason as to why knowledge of defect in his title and consequently his possession becoming unlawful to his own knowledge would not come within the purview of the term land grabbing as contained in Section 2 (e) of the Act. The provisions of the Act must be construed so as to enable the tribunal to give effect thereto. It cannot be construed in a pedantic manner which if taken to its logical corollary would make the provisions wholly unworkable. Only because a person has entered into possession of a land on the basis of a purported registered sale deed, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that he had not entered over the land unauthorisedly, unfairly, or greedily.(41 ) So far as the pleadings in the application under Section 8 of the Act is concerned, suffice it to say that the same was filed in a prescribed form. There does not exist any column where the requisite pleadings by way of fulfilling the second part of the ingredients of land grabbing could be pleaded. With the said application, a concise statement was annexed. The said concise statement, therefore, became a part of the application. It has categorically been stated therein that the appellant without having any right or title illegally encroached upon the Government45 ) 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 theobtaining herein, was not necessary. Pleadings of the parties, it is noware not to be construed in a pedautic46 ) 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 (supra47 ) 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.