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

( 3 ) The land bearing Survey No. 82 situate in village Bowenpally and Survey No. 157/1 situate in Village Thokatta appurtenant to Trimulgherry Mandal, Hyderabad, admeasuring 7788 sq. metres were inam lands. The said lands vested in the State of andhra Pradesh upon coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, the 1955 Act) with effect from 20. 07.4 ) One B. Ramender Reddy and several others were claiming ownership of the said lands purported to have acquired title of the Inamdars. They sought for the grant of occupancy certificate from the State. The application filed in that behalf was rejected by the5 ) Ramender Reddy, however, transferred his purported right, title and interest in the said lands by reason of two registered deeds of sale dated 03. 01. 1985 and 05. 01. 1985 in favour of the appellant, which is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act,6 ) Despite the fact that Ramender Reddy had already transferred his right, title and interest in favour of theby reason of the aforementioned deeds of sale, he along with some others, who were also claiming similar rights, filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court being Writ Petitions Nos. 8734 to 8737 of 1983 etc. The said writ petitions were dismissed by reason of a judgment and order dated 06. 03. 1987 by a learned Single Judge of the said Court opining that in view of Section 3 (1) of the 1955 Act the lands in question had vested in the State. The said judgment attained finality. Even a Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by this7 ) Appellant, however, despite knowledge of the said judgment and order dated 06. 03. 1987 allegedly made huge investments by raising construction thereupon. A notice under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued on it on 27. 04. 1987, wherein the company was described as an encroacher of the land in question. Questioning the legality of the said notice, a writ application was filed by the appellant, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 5954 of8 ) We may observe that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant filed an application for regularization of the said land before the State, relevant recitals whereof are as under : we are informed by the Honourable Mandal Revenue Officer that an extent of 781 sq. mtrs. Land is a Government land in the Workshop and that the possession thereof must be delivered to the Government. It is respectfully submitted that the workshop has been functioning for last 10 years at the aforesaid S. Nos. and the portion said to be belonging to the Government is abetting the main road and if the same is taken over by the Government it will make impossible for us to have an access to the workshop apart therefrom it will not be possible for us to utilize the workshop. In the circumstances we request you to kindly Sir, to regularize the ownership of that land and we are agreeable to pay a reasonable compensation to the Government for the land abutting the main road and the land to our extent of 1485. 08 sq. mtrs. in the same survey No. which is lying vacant because if it is allotted to somebody then we will not have our access to our workshop. If the land is not allotted to us the entire business of the company will be greatly affected and many families, depended will be put to great loss and hardship. In this connection we also wish to bring to your kind attention that the land was initially inhabitable and unusable being full of boulders and rocks and after spending huge sums we had made it suitable for construction purpose. This aspects may kindly be kept in view while fixing the reasonable compensation payable by us for the said9 ) In response thereto, the appellant was asked to withdraw his writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 5954 of 1987, so as to enable the government to examine the issue of regularization of the possession, subject of course, to the payment of the market value of the land. Appellant, however, did not withdraw the said writ application. Despite the same, the Collector allegedly made recommendations for regularization of the land in favour of the appellant, statingPetitioner informed that the matter has been brought to the Supreme Court and is pending. This Office has no information with regard to the filing of case in the supreme Court. However, the land is Inam land which is already vested with the government and possession has been assumed during the year 1987. Since the Petitioner is a purchaser of the said land (partly) and has filed undertaking to pay the prevailing market value regularization of the land in Sy. No. 82 Bowenpally village can be considered subject to outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, if any. According to basic valuation register in the above vicinity the market value is @ rs. 500/to Rs. 850/per sq. yard for the yearsand between Rs. 780/to rs. 1240/per sq. yard in the year 1993. Therefore the lands in Sy. No. 157/1 to an extent of 2763 sq. yards and land in Sy. No. 82 of Bowenpally village to an extent of 7728 sq. yards i. e. total 10491 sq. yards or 8772 sq. mtrs. is recommended for regularization on payment of market value @ rs. 1240/per sq. yard in favour of the M/s Mahalaxmi Motor Private Limited in relaxation of ban orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 634 RevenueDepartment dt. 2. 7. 1990.10 ) The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment and order dated 04. 06. 1996, holdingthe vendor of the Petitioner have (sic) failed to get occupancy certificate in their favour, the Petitioner who is claiming under its vendor cannot obtain any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed. However, the Petitioner is granted six weeks time for obtaining appropriate orders from the concerned authorities.11 ) Prayer of the appellant for regularization of the land was rejected by the State by an order dated 06. 12. 1999. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed another writ application before the Andhra Pradesh high Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 15 of12 ) During the pendency of the said proceedings, the First Respondent herein initiated a proceeding in terms of Section 8 (1) of the Act before the Special Court, praying, inter13 ) Appellant filed its written statement in the said proceeding, contending that the provisions of the said Act were not14 ) On or about 30. 07. 2001, inter alia, on the premise that the aforementioned order dated 06. 12. 1999 was not a speaking one, while allowing the writ petition No. 15 of 2000, the High Court remitted the matter to the State government for consideration of the appellants prayer for regularization afresh having regard to the recommendations of the Collector dated 22. 10. 1994 and that of the Commissioner dated 30. 09. 1997 within a period of two15 ) It is not in dispute that only recently, namely, on 03. 08. 2007, the said prayer of the appellant for regularization of the land has been16 ) Before the Special Court, the appellant, inrer alia, raised the following contentions(i) The petitioner did not enter upon the land suddenly or unscrupulously but through registered sale deeds and it was not a land grabber as defined in Section 2 (d), (e) and (i) of the Act. (ii) The sale deed clearly showed that the Petitioners were in uninterrupted possession of the land since 1985, while itswere in possession since 1960s. Thehad not been impleaded in LGC No. 7 of 2000. (iii) The Petitioners application for regularization was pending before the Government and the definitional requirement of a Land grabber had not been fulfilled. (iv) The initial burden of proving that the Petitioner was a Land grabber as mandated by Section 10 of the Act had not been fulfilled. (v) The Petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration and huge amount of money has been spent to develop the land for an automobile workshop. (vi) The Respondents had not initiated proceedings against the Petitioner for over 12 years.17 ) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Special Court framed the following issues(i) Whether the Applicant has title to the application schedule land? (ii) Whether the rival title set up by the Respondent is true, valid and binding? (iii) Whether the Respondent is a land grabber within the meaning of the Act XII of 1982? (iv) In the event of success, whether the Applicant is entitled to the compensation as claimed? (v) Whether any direction can be given by this Court for regularization in terms of g. O. Ms. No. 508 and 972? (vi) To what18 ) By a judgment and order dated 11. 08. 2004, the Special Court allowed the said application of the First Respondent, holding. . . . . . Thus, it is clear that the vendor of the respondent failed to get Occupancy certificate of the application schedule property and he has no title to sell the same. . . . . . In Ex. B. 4 in para 7 of the Honble High Court categorically held stating "it is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the land in 1985, but it was finally declared that the land belonged to the Government. " Thus, the very document relied by the respondent herein under Ex. B. 4 clearly indicates that the application schedule land is a Government land. . . . . The very fact that he applied for regularization of the application schedule land clearly indicates that the respondent having recognized the government as titleholder of the application schedule land applied for regularization of the same as he occupied the land since more than 14 years and running garage. . . . . Thus, the very testimony of PW 1 clubbed with the documentary evidence exs. A1, A2 Pahanies, A3 village Map of Bowenpally and Thokatta Villages, A. 4 rough sketch showing the application schedule land clearly establishes that the application schedule land is a Government land. . . . . . . But this petition is filed in the year 2000 and as his possession of the application schedule land is for 14 years, he is not entitled to raise the plea of adverse possession.Special Court further heldview of our discussion on issues 1 and 2 as it was established that respondent is in possession of the application schedule land without any legal entitlement, he can be ranked as land grabber within the meaning of the Act. . . . . . . The applicant did not adduce any evidence for grant of compensation. There is no iota of evidence in this regard. . . . . . . . . . . In view of the provisions of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction to the Government, who is the owner and who got title over the property for regularization of the land. . . . . . . But the learned counsel for the respondent contended that above said proceeding for regularization is pending before the Government. It is a matter between the Government and the respondent. . . . . . . As the respondent is in possession of the application schedule land without any legal entitlement it can be dubbed as land grabber within the meaning of the Act and liable for eviction and ordered accordingly.19 ) A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellant before the Andhra Pradesh high Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 15920 of 2004. has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

Reasoning: ( 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.