Dismissed

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav v. The Spl. Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

Telangana HC25 Jun 2013WP/13230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cognizance taken by a Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act regarding alleged encroachment on government land. The Court held that mere allegations are sufficient for cognizance and the petitioners have adequate opportunity to defend themselves in the trial.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous; no order as to costs.

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs The Spl. Court under a.P.Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

, THE DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.13230 of 2013

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

M. Ravi Kumar Yadav and another.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad Rep. through its Registrar and others.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶16

Respondents 2 and 3 in L.G.C.(SR).No.339 of 2012 filed this writ petition aggrieved by the cognizance of the said land grabbing case taken by the Special Court.

¶17

2. We have heard Mr. K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondent - State.

¶18

3. The said LGC was filed by the State on the basis of a news item published in Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 17.01.2012 alleging that cheruvu sikham land in Sy.Nos.7 and 8 of the Gopanpally village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac.0.42 guntas was allegedly grabbed. The Honourable Chairman of the Special Court has taken suo motu cognizance and directed to place the matter before the bench, which has later called for a report from the Collector concerned. It appears that as many as three reports were sent by the Joint Collector, which were taken into consideration apart from the report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records.

¶19

On a comparative analysis of the reports, the Special Court was of the opinion that as against the three reports of the Joint Collector,

¶20

the report of Assistant Director shows apparent conflict and as such, true facts will come to light only when the case is admitted and full length trial is conducted. Based on the said order, the State has preferred the aforesaid LGC. The Special Court has, thereafter, heard arguments on the maintainability of the said case on the basis of the averments made in the concise statement filed in the Court on 11.01.2013 and 30.01.2013.

¶21

4. Under the impugned proceedings, the Special Court recorded in its docket order dated 05.12.2012 is as follows:

¶22

“We are unable to understand why Assistant Director sent conflicting reports. There appears to be some dark area to the events. The true facts will come to light only when the case is admitted and full length trial is conducted. The Government is directed to file Form-I against encroachers on the basis of the earlier reports of the Assistant Director.”

¶23

5. The Special Court, therefore, was of the opinion that any contradictions and ambiguities in the reports would be adjudicated when the land grabbing case is tried and heard on merits and in view of that, the Special Court has admitted case and given opportunity to both side to prove their respective contentions. The Special Court, accordingly, has taken cognizance of the case, which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the said report, referred to above, particularly, the report of the Assistant Director, which shows that there are no encroachments. Learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to explain that there is no contradiction in the report of the Assistant Director, as the report was not based on any survey, he had merely attested the report of the Deputy Inspector and forwarded the same to the Collector whereas the second report dated 25.06.2012 is based on personal survey and the said report was also found to be correct by high level committee comprising of two Deputy Directors. Learned counsel, therefore, would submit that the material on the basis of which the Special Court has taken cognizance itself does not exist and there is no material to show that there is any encroachment or grabbing by the petitioners.

¶25

7. Before considering the contentions of the petitioners,

¶26

it is necessary to keep in mind the procedure and powers of the Special Court, as stipulated under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8(1) of the Act,

¶27

which is relevant, is, therefore, extracted for the sake of convenience:

¶28

“8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts : -

¶29

(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance made 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.”

¶30

8. We are unable to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, in view of the fact that the Special Court has merely taken cognizance of the land grabbing case by taking a, prima facie, view of the allegations contained in the land grabbing case, particularly, the concise statement filed by the State. It is evident from the said report that as per the revenue records, the land in Sy.No.7 of Gopanpally village to the extent of Ac.0.01 gunta is classified as Government land and in Sy.No.8, the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas is classified as Sikkam Kunta (Government). It is stated that the survey conducted by the

¶31

State shows that the land in Sy.No7 to the extent of Ac.0.01 gunta and land in Sy.No.8 to the extent of Ac.0.09 guntas is encroached by the first respondent in the land grabbing case and an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas is vacant and available on ground. Thus, it is alleged that there is a shortfall of Ac.1.00 guntas on the ground and regarding the said area, the aforesaid land grabbing case is filed alleging that there is grabbing by the respondents therein, which included writ petitioners.

¶32

9. As noted above, the averments in the land grabbing case and the material placed before the Special Court was examined by the Special Court and it was satisfied that the State has made out the necessary ingredients for taking cognizance of the complaint of land grabbing. It is well settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJI v.

¶33

[1] GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH that mere allegation of land grabbing is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Special Court to entertain and enquire into the complaint of land grabbing. Since the satisfaction of the Special Court cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise not warranted on the material before it, we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the cognizance taken, especially, as the petitioners would get adequate opportunity to defend themselves before the Special Court by filing their counter and producing oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. At this stage, therefore, no ground is made out by the petitioners warranting interference with the cognizance taken by the Special Court.

¶34

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

_____________ N. V. RAMANA, J

¶36

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶37

June , 2013 DSK

¶38

[1] 2002 (2) ALD 56 (SC)

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav v. The Spl. Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav v. The Spl. Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakarlapudi Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o Jagannadha Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

Bollineni Venkata Satyavathi Vs The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

M/s. Nikhil Tobaccos Vs The Tobacco Board

The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its Vs M/s. Gayathri Educational Society

Mir Mohsin Ali, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Aitha Ravinder, Vs The Andhra Bank, Rep by its General Manager