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

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 1955with effect fromB. 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 theReddy, 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,the fact that Ramender Reddy had already transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the appellant-company by 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 thishowever, 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 anof 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 ofmay 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 underare 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 survy 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 saidresponse 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 years 1991-92 and 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 Revenue (Ann-III) Department dt.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 concernedof 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 ofthe 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, inter alia, for the following reliefsDeclare that the respondent is land grabber.(ii) Evict the respondent from the application scheduled land.(iii) Award compensation of Rs. 20/- per sq. meters per month from 1985 for the wrongful possession of the land in question.(iv) Award cost of this petition.(v) Punish the respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act.(vi) Pass any other relief or reliefs as theCourt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of thefiled its written statement in the said proceeding, contending that the provisions of the said Act were notor 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 theprayer 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 twois not in dispute that only recently, namely, on 03.08.2007, the said prayer of the appellant for regularization of the land has beenthe Special Court, the appellant, inter alia, raised the following contentionsThe petitioner did not enter upon the land suddenly or unscrupulously but through registered sale deeds and it was not a ‘landas 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 its predecessors-in-title were in possession since 1960s. The predecessors-in-title had not been impleaded in LGC No. 7 of 2000.(iii) Theapplication for regularization was pending before the Government and the definitional requirement of a ‘Landhad 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 12view of the pleadings of the parties, the Special Court framed the following issuesWhether 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 whata judgment and order dated 11.08.2004, the Special Court allowed the said application of the First Respondent, holdingit 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 sameIn Ex. B. 4 in para 7 of theHigh 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 theThus, 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 landBut 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 adverseSpecial 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 orderedwrit 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.

Court's reasoning:
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.