http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4755 of 2007

PETITIONER: M/s Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd

RESPONDENT: Mandal Revenue Officer & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/10/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9148 of 2007] S.B. SINHA, J :

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of the Andhra  Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, \021the Act\022) is  involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated  30.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition  (Civil) No. 15920 of 2004.  Facts  : 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, \021the 1955 Act\022) with effect from 20.07.1955.   

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 the Collector.         5.      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, 1956.       6.      Despite 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 this Court.         7.      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 \021encroacher\022 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 of 1987.  

8.      We may observe that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

appellant filed an application for regularization of the said land before the  State,  relevant recitals whereof  are as under :

       \023We 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 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 said land.\024

9.      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, stating :            \023The Petitioner 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

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.  2.7.1990.\024

10.     The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment  and order dated 04.06.1996, holding :

       \023As the 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.\024                                  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 of 2000.   

12.     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, inter alia, for the following reliefs :                 \023(i) Declare 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 the Hon\022ble  Court may deem fit and proper in the  circumstances of the case.\024    

13.     Appellant filed its written statement in the said proceeding,   contending that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable.

14.     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 appellant\022s 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 two months.   

15.     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 been rejected.

16.     Before the Special Court, the appellant, inter alia, raised the following  contentions :

\023(i) The petitioner did not enter upon the land suddenly   or unscrupulously but through registered sale

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

deeds and it was not a \023land grabber\024 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 its predecessors-in-title were in  possession since 1960s.  The predecessors-in-title  had not been impleaded in LGC No. 7 of 2000.

(iii)   The Petitioner\022s application for regularization was  pending before the Government and the  definitional requirement of a \023Land Grabber\024 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.\024  

17.     In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Special Court framed the  following issues :

\023(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 what relief?           18.     By a judgment and order dated 11.08.2004, the Special Court allowed  the said application of the First Respondent, holding :                  \023\005Thus, 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\005In  Ex. B. 4 in para 7 of the Hon\022ble High Court  categorically held stating \023it 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.\024  Thus, the very document relied by the  respondent herein under Ex. B. 4 clearly indicates that  the application schedule land is a Government  land\005.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

more than 14 years and running garage\005Thus, 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\005But 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.\024

The Special Court further held :

                \023In view 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\005The applicant did not adduce any evidence for  grant of compensation.  There is no iota of evidence in  this regard\005In 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\005But 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\005As  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.\024      

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.

Submissions : 20.     Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, raised the following contentions in support of the appeal :   (i)     The learned Special Court as also the High Court committed a  manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they  failed to take into consideration  that the first respondent neither  pleaded nor proved the ingredients of the terms \021land grabber\022 and  \021land grabbing\022 as defined in the said Act.   (ii)    The averment to the effect that the appellant had allegedly  encroached the Government land was not sufficient to establish the  existence of the essential ingredients of the provisions of the said  Act that the appellant had any intention or knowledge to take  possession of the land in question illegally.   (iii)   Appellant herein, having entered into the possession pursuant to  two registered deeds of sale and having been allowed to take  possession and raise constructions upon expending a large sum of  money, must be held to be acted bona fide being under the  impression that he had a right to do so.  It was, therefore, not a case  where the appellant had taken possession of the land belonging to  the Government, unauthorizedly, unfairly and greedily or snatched  forcibly, violently or unscrupulously the subject land or that it was  a  successor in interest of any such person.   (iv)    Factual possession alone being not only the ingredient of the  provisions of the said Act, but intention of the person who is  alleged to have grabbed the land being imperative, the impugned  judgment cannot be sustained.        

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

(v)     The Special Court having not determined the second ingredient of  \021Land Grabbing\022, namely, the intention of the person who is  alleged to have grabbed the land, the impugned judgment cannot  be sustained.   (vi)    The application for regularization of the land in question having  been pending before the State Government, no application under  Section 8 of the Act was maintainable. (vii)   Only because the appellant had filed an application for  regularization of the said land, the same by itself could not be a  ground to arrive at a finding that it had an intention to grab the said  land as far back as in the year 1985. (viii)  Despite the order dated 30.07.2001, passed by a learned Single  Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P (Civil) No. 15 of  2000 directing the State Government to pass a speaking order on  the appellant\022s application for regularization in the light of the  recommendations made by the Collector as also the Commissioner,  the State Government having failed to do so, the learned Special  Judge should not have adjudicated upon the issue of \021land  grabbing\022 in the said proceeding.

21.     Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General,  appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted :     (i)     The provisions of the Act must be read harmoniously and so  read, it would be evident that the purported second element of  the definition would only mean that a person had taken  possession of the land without any lawful entitlement. (ii)    Intention to illegally occupy the land in question cannot be the  sine qua non for determining the meaning of the term \023land  grabbing\024 under the Act, as has been contended on behalf of the  appellant in this case, inasmuch once a person comes to know  that his predecessor in interest had no title to the land in  question, his possession would become illegal. (iii)   The contention of the appellant that during the pendency of  regularization proceeding, the State should not have initiated  the proceeding before the Special Court, cannot be accepted as :

(a)    Firstly, the responsibility to check its vendor\022s title  was on the Petitioner.  The doctrine of constructive  notice would also operate against the Petitioner.  If  it failed to discharge its responsibility, the  Petitioner cannot claim to have acted without an  intention to illegally occupy State property.

(b)     Any other interpretation would completely  frustrate the Act itself.  It would effectively mean  that as long as the land grabber is able to sell the  land to a third party, no one can be proceeded  against under the Act.  Such an interpretation must  be avoided.

(c)     In any event, the fact is that Petitioner was aware  in 1987 that it was illegally occupying State  property.  From that time onwards, its intention to  continue to occupy the property is clear.  And the  Respondents only commenced these proceedings  in 2000, when it was clear that the Petitioner had  no intention of vacating the land and handing over  the same to its rightful owner, the State.  This is  precisely the evil the Act aims to tackle.

(d)     There is no provision in the Act that enables the  Special Court to direct the State to regularize an  illegal occupancy.  That is not the function of the  Special Court.  As the Special Court pointed out, if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

the Petitioner has a grievance in that regard, he  should approach the appropriate forum.  This  cannot be used as a defence in land grabbing  proceedings.

      Statutory provisions : 22.     The said Act was enacted to prohibit the activity of land grabbing in  the State of Andhra Pradesh and to provide for matters incidental thereto and  connected therewith.

23.     Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of Section 2 of the Act define \023land\024, \023land  grabber\024 and \023land grabbing\024 respectively in the following terms :          \023(c) \023land\024 includes rights in or over land, benefits to  arise out of land and buildings, structures and other  things attached to the earth or permanently  fastened to anything attached to the earth;\024

\023(d) \023land grabber\024 means 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 unauthorized structures thereon, or  who collects or attempts to collect from any  occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and  other charges by criminal intimidation, or abets the  doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also  includes the successors in interest.\024   

\023(e) \023land grabbing\024 means 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  licences agreement or any other illegal agreements  in respect of such lands, or to construct  unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or  give such lands to any person on rental or lease  and licence basis for construction, or use and  occupation, of unauthorized structures; and the  term \023to grab land\024 shall be construed  accordingly.\024         

       Section 3 of the Act provides for land grabbing to be unlawful in the  following terms :

\0233.  Land Grabbing to be unlawful :- Land grabbing in  any form is hereby declared unlawful; and any activity  connected with or arising out of land grabbing shall be an  offence punishable under this Act.\024

       Section 4 of the Act provides for prohibition of land grabbing in the  following terms :                       \0234. Prohibition of land grabbing :- (1)_ No person  shall commit or cause to be committed land grabbing.

       (2) Any person who, on or after the  commencement of this Act, continues to be in  occupation, otherwise than as a lawful tenant, of a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

grabbed land belonging to the Government, local  authority, religious or charitable institution or  endowment including a wakf, or other private person,  shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

       (3)     Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) shall on conviction, be  punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not  be less than six months but which may extend to five  years, and with fine which may extend to five thousand  rupees.\024       

       Section 7 provides for constitution of special courts, relevant portion  whereof, insofar as the same is relevant for the present discussions,  is  reproduced as under :           \0237. Constitution of Special Courts .\027(1) The  Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy  enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing, and trial of  cases in respect of the ownership and title to, or lawful  possession of, the land grabbed, by notification,  constitute a Special Court.          ***                       ***                             ***  (5-D)( i ) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) the Special Court may  follow its own procedure which shall not be inconsistent  with the principles of natural justice and fair play and  subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any  rules made thereunder while deciding the civil liability.\024    

       Section 8 of the Act provides for procedures and powers of the  Special Courts,  relevant portion whereof, insofar as the same is relevant for  the purpose of the present case,  reads as under : \0238. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts .\027(1)  The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application  made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance  of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of  land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title  to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether  before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass  such orders (including orders by way of interim  directions) as it deems fit;       (1-A) The Special Court shall, for the purpose of  taking cognizance of the case, consider the location, or  extent or value of the land alleged to have been grabbed  or of the substantial nature of the evil involved or in the  interest of justice required or any other relevant matter:   Provided that the Special Court shall not take cognizance  of any such case without hearing the petitioner;   

    (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  or in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, any  case in respect of an alleged act of land grabbing or the  determination of question of title and ownership to, or  lawful possession of any land grabbed under this Act,  shall be triable only in a Special Court constituted for the  area in which the land grabbed is situated; and the  decision of the Special Court shall be final.           ***                     ***                     ***       (2-C) The Special Court shall determine the order  in which the civil and criminal liability against a land  grabber be initiated. It shall be within the discretion of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

the Special Court whether or not to deliver its decision or  order until both civil and criminal proceedings are  completed. The evidence admitted during the criminal  proceeding may be made use of while trying the civil  liability. But additional evidence, if any, adduced in the  civil proceedings shall not be considered by the Special  Court while determining the criminal liability. Any  person accused of land grabbing or the abetment thereof  before the Special Court shall be a competent witness for  the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of  the charge made against him or any person charged  together with him in the criminal proceeding:       Provided that he shall not be called as a witness  except on his own request in writing or his failure to give  evidence shall be made the subject of any comment by  any of the parties or the Special Court or give rise to any  presumption against himself or any person charged  together with him at the same proceeding.           ***                             ***                     ***            (6) Every finding of the Special Court with regard  to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive  proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who  committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the  Special Court with regard to the determination of title  and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land  grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in  such land. \023

    Section 15 provides for Act\022s overriding effect over other laws.  

       Section 17-B of the Act provides for the guidelines for interpretation  of the Act in the following terms :                       \02317-B.  Guidelines for interpretation of Act :- The  Schedule shall constitute the guidelines for the  interpretation and implementation of this Act.\024  

Precedents : 24.     Interpretation of the provisions of the said Act and in particular the  definitions of  \023land grabber\024 and \023land grabbing\024 came up for consideration  before a Division Bench of this Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v.  Government of Andhra Pradesh and others [(2002) 3 SCC 258].

       We would examine the said decision in a bit detail.  In that case the  Special Court opined that the occupation of the land in dispute claimed  by  the appellant therein was without any lawful entitlement.  It also decided the  question of ownership and title to lawful possession of the land in dispute on  appreciating the evidence on record.  It was held that the land in dispute is  not a part of Inam.  A finding of fact was recorded in regard to absence of  lawful entitlement of the appellant to the land and upholding the title of the  respondent that the land in question was a Government land.  A writ petition  was filed thereagainst which was dismissed.  This Court while considering  the appeal preferred by the land grabber, inter alia, held :

(i)     The Special Tribunal has only civil jurisdiction and the Code of  Civil Procedure is applicable to the proceedings before it, whereas  the Special Court has both the Civil as well as criminal jurisdiction  to which the provisions of both the Code of Civil Procedure and  Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. (ii)    The Special Court exercises both the original and appellate  jurisdictions as well as court of sessions for all practical purposes. (iii)   A mere allegation of land grabbing is sufficient to invoke the  jurisdiction of the Special Court.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

(iv)    The Civil Court\022s jurisdiction is ousted and the Act, which is a  special law, would prevail and as such the Special Court has  jurisdiction in respect of the  matter dealt with thereunder.   (v)     In terms of Section 10 of the Act, the burden of proof is on the  person who alleges that the land has not been grabbed by him. (vi)    The provisions of the Act not only deals with an action of a wrong  but also an offence.  The definitions contained in Section 2(d) and  2(e) are required to be construed strictly.   

25.     In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra), this Court interpreting the  expression \023land grabbing\024 observed :   \02331. Clause (e) of Section 2, quoted above, defines the  expression \023land grabbing\024 to mean: (1) 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; (2) such  grabbing must be: (i) without any lawful entitlement, and  (ii) with a view to: (a) illegally taking possession of such  lands; or (b) to enter into or create illegal tenancies, lease  and licence agreements or any other illegal agreements in  respect of such lands; or (c) to construct unauthorised  structures thereon for sale or hire; or (d) to give such  lands to any person on (i) rental, or (ii) lease and licence  basis for construction, or (iii) use and occupation of  unauthorised structures.\024            It was observed :                  \02337. The various meanings noted above, disclose that the  term \023grab\024 has a broad meaning \027 to take  unauthorisedly, greedily or unfairly \027 and a narrow  meaning of snatching forcibly or violently or by  unscrupulous means. Having regard to the object of the  Act and the various provisions employing that term we  are of the view that the term \023grab\024 is used in the Act in  both its narrow as well as broad meanings. Thus  understood, the ingredients of the expression \023land  grabbing\024 would comprise (i) the factum of an activity of  taking possession of any land forcibly, violently,  unscrupulously, unfairly or greedily without any lawful  entitlement, and (ii) the mens rea/intention \027 \023with the  intention of/with a view to\024 (a) illegally taking  possession of such lands, or (b) enter into or create illegal  tenancies, lease and licence agreements or any other  illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or (c) to  construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire,  or (d) to give such lands to any person on (i) rental, or (ii)  lease and licence basis for construction, or ( iii ) use and  occupation of unauthorised structures. 38. A combined reading of clauses ( d ) and ( e ) would  suggest that to bring a person within the meaning of the  expression \023land grabber\024 it must be shown that: ( i )( a )  he has taken unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, snatched  forcibly, violently or unscrupulously any land belonging  to the Government or a local authority, a religious or  charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or  any other private person; (b) without any lawful  entitlement; and (c) with a view to illegally taking  possession of such lands, or enter 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 give  such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence  basis for construction, or use and occupation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

unauthorised structures; or (ii) he has given financial aid  to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for  construction of unauthorised structures thereon; or (iii) he  is collecting or attempting to collect from any occupiers  of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by  criminal intimidation; or (iv) he is abetting the doing of  any of the abovementioned acts; or (v) that he is the  successor-in-interest of any such persons.\024

It was further observed :     \023\005A mere prima facie bona fide claim to the land  alleged to be grabbed by such a person, cannot avert  being roped in within the ambit of the expression \023land  grabber\024. What is germane is lawful entitlement to and  not a mere prima facie bona fide claim to the l and  alleged to be grabbed\005         xxx                     xxx                     xxx  70. The requisite intention which is an important  ingredient of the land grabber, though not stated  specifically, can be inferred by necessary implication  from the averments in the petition and the plaint and the  deposition of witness like any other fact. If a person  comes into occupation of any government land under the  guise of a perpetual lease executed by an unauthorised  person having no title to or interest in the land it cannot  but be with a view to illegally taking possession of such  land. We make i t clear that we are expressing no opinion  on the point whether those averments would constitute  \023mens rea\024 for purposes of offence under the Act.\024  

26.     We would consider the application of the aforementioned legal  principles enumerated by this Court to the fact of the present case, a little  later; but before doing so, we may notice some other decisions, which have  been cited at the Bar.

27.     In Gouni Satya Reddi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others   [(2004) 7 SCC 398], a two-Judge Bench of this Court held : \02310. From a reading of the definitions of the phrases  \023land grabber\024 and \023land grabbing\024 it is clear that the  grabbing of any land must be without any lawful  entitlement and with a view to take possession of such  lands illegally. That is to say, the land grabber must be  aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession  illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such  elements as indicated above are missing in our view, it  would not be a case of land grabbing.\024  

It was further held :

\02313. The first thing to be noted is that the case of  Respondent 3 as sought to be made out in the petition as  quoted in the earlier part of this judgment was that the  appellant had created false documents by creating the  false power of attorney in favour of Prabhakara Rao and  got the sale deed registered in his favour and that the sale  deed was also false. But we don\022t find any such finding  having been recorded by the Special Court saying that the  appellant had created the false document by creating the  false power of attorney. In absence of any such finding it  may be examined as to what extent taking over of  possession by the appellant without lawful entitlement  was \023 with a view to take possession illegally \024. Mere fact  of not being lawfully entitled to enter into possession by  itself would not lead to the inference of land grabbing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

unless possession is illegally taken with that view in  mind.  It is a necessary ingredient of land grabbing i.e.  the person taking possession must know it that he is  acting illegally while taking possession.\024

It was observed :

\023\005The provisions of the Act would not cover such cases,  unless coupled with the fact of not being entitled to  possession the person enters into possession with a view  to obtain illegal possession . Where such view of taking  illegal possession is missing or lacking, a person would  not be covered under the definition of the phrase or  expression \023land grabber\024. The facts, to indicate such  intention, though have been pleaded, as indicated earlier,  but no such finding has been recorded. The mere fact of  legally not entitled to the possession would not fulfil the  ingredients of the definitions of \023land grabber\024 and \023land  grabbing\024\005\024     28.     However, recently in A.P. Housing Board v. Mohammad Sadatullah  & Others [2007 (5) SCALE 681], a Division Bench of this Court opined that  the plea of adverse possession cannot be gone into in a proceeding under the  said Act, stating :                  \02341. In this connection, reference was made to a  recent decision of this Court in N. Srinivasa Rao v.  Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing  (Prohibition) Act and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 214.  A two  Judge Bench of this Court in the above case held that the  Special Court constituted under the Act has no  jurisdiction to decide question as to acquisition of title by  adverse possession in a proceeding under the Act as the  same would fall within the domain of Civil Court.\024    

29.     In State of A.P. v. Smt. Pramela Modi and Others [2006 (11) SCALE  38],  a Division Bench of this Court held :         \02328. It is thus seen that the Special Court can play  the role of a Civil Court and decide the disputed question  of title and possession. The extent of jurisdiction as is  permitted by the statute, therefore, is rather wide in its  application. Three specific situations have been noted  namely, i)      Jurisdiction can be had in regard to a case in  respect of an alleged act of land grabbing ii)     Jurisdiction can be had in a case where  determination of question of title and ownership  are involved and iii)    Jurisdiction can be had where lawful possession  of any land grabbed under the Act is involved. All these three specific situations as envisaged by and  under the Statute would be triable in the Special Court.  The condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by the  Special Court is that the case must have arisen out of any  alleged act of land grabbing and a District Judge while  acting as a Special Court merely acts as a Presiding  Officer of the Court. Having regard to the provisions of  Section 8(2) read with Section 15 of the Act, no suit for  title in respect of the disputed land which was alleged to  be grabbed by the party could be entertained by the Civil  Court. In other words, the Civil Court is barred from  trying the matters which fall within the exclusive  jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the  Act.\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

        Application of law : 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 such  regularization.

31.     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.   

32.     The Act is a self-contained Code.  In view of its power as also  applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the tribunal can  in a given case even entertain counter claims [See Union of India v. Tata  Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. [JT 2007 (10) SC 356].          33.     The Tribunal being possessed of extensive jurisdiction, subject of  course to fulfillment of the conditions precedent, for initiation of the  proceeding, was entitled to go into all issues.  We have furthermore to bear  in mind that the definition of \021land grabber\022 is not only restricted to the party  to the proceeding, but also includes his predecessor in interest.  Once the  land is held to be a Government land, the logical corollary thereto would be  that subject to the law of limitation and prescription, the State would not lose  the said right to the opposite party.

34.     It may be true that absence of lawful entitlement by itself may not be  sufficient to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the State and against  the land grabber, but also it must be shown that he had taken illegal  possession thereof.

35.     The Bench in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra) has applied both the  broader and narrow meanings of the said expression.  It would not, however,  mean that all the tests laid down therein are required to be satisfied to their  letter and spirit.  What is necessary to be proved is the substance of the  allegation.  The proof of intention on the part of a persons being his state of  mind, the ingredients of the provisions must be considered keeping in view  the materials on records as also circumstances attending thereto.  What  would be  germane for lawful entitlement to remain in possession would be  that if the proceedee proves that he had bona fide claim over the land, in  which event, it would be for him to establish the same.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

36.     In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra), this Court has categorically held  that the requisite intension can be inferred by necessary implication from the  averments made in the petition, the written statement and the depositions of  witnesses,  like any other fact.  The question which must, therefore, have to  be posed and answered having regard to the claim of  the land grabber would  be that, if on the face of his claim it would appear that he not only had no  title, but claimed his possession only on the basis thereof, the same must be  held to be illegal.  The question in regard to lawful entitlement of the  proceedee, therefore, for invoking the charging  section plays an important  and significant role.          37.     We would like to add that the person\022s 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 \021land grabbing\022 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.   

38.     For determination of such an issue, the Special Court will be entitled  to take into consideration not only the rival claims of the parties, but also the  earlier round of litigation, if any, and subsequent conduct of the proceedee  himself.   

Determination :  39.     The predecessor in interest of the appellant, Ramender Reddy, was  claiming the said land as if it was a grant by way of Inam.  The  Andhra  Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 8734 of 1983 categorically came to the  finding that the land in question had vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh  and Ramender Reddy was not entitled even to grant of an occupancy  certificate.  Ramender Reddy had, therefore, no title over  the land.  It was  obligatory on the part of the appellant keeping in view the doctrine of caveat  emptor to examine the title of the vendor over the land, it purchased.  Within  a period of two years from the date of purchase, the appellant became aware  that it had acquired no title thereto and it had illegally been occupying the  land, as the same belonged to the Government and, thus, the latter was  entitled to possess the same.  Apart therefrom, the appellant was put to  notice that it was an encroacher.  Admittedly, it had been served with a  notice under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act.  The writ petition  filed by it again was dismissed.  Observations made therein by the learned  Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh that its application for regularization  may be disposed of in the manner specified therein did not and could not  have clothed the appellant with a legal entitlement thereto.   

40.     It is one thing to say that by reason of the direction by the High Court,  its application for regularization of the land was liable to be considered but it  is another thing to say that its possession thereto became lawful or otherwise  it became legally entitled to possess the land.  Right to possess the land must  be referable to the title of the land not to mere entitlement of its application

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

for regularization to be considered.  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 Government land.  The history of  litigation had also been specifically stated therein, which is to the following  effect :

       \0234.  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 Governemnt.\024        

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 \021land grabbing\022.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

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, are of the opinion that no case has been made out for  interference with the impugned judgment.  The appeal is dismissed with  costs.    Counsel\022s fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand  only).