LexBANWAR LAL & ORS. versus G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C.R. 632 BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2200-2201 of 2001) APRIL 16, 2008 [B.N. AGRAWAL, ALTAMAS KABIR & G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - s. 6 - Owner and possessor of land leasing out the land to a Company - Notice c under s. 6 by Revenue Officer to vacate land - Challenge to - Notices quashed with leave to the Government to establish its title,.,_ Writ appeal - Direction by Division Bench of High Court to maintain status quo for three months - However, Authorities carrying out constructions over the said land - Contempt D petition - Upheld by Division Bench of High Court and contemnors directed to pay compensation @ of Rs. 5, 0001- per sq. yard to petitioners- Justification of- Held: Construction -+ work was not carried on during the period the order of status quo was in force- Contempt petition was filed almost four years after the order of status quo ceased to operate - Therefore, E findings of courts below regarding contempt of court alleged to have been committed by contemnors set aside - 19 acres of land has been utilised for construction of ministers' quarters, direction to restore the land to the owners would cause great hardship to Authorities -Thus, in view of the assessment made F by State Authorities, compensation awarded, enhanced to Rs. 15, 0001- per sq. yard. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 2200-2201 of 2001 became absolute owner and possessor of 10 acres of land in Survey 1291 G 3611. The original owner-VS had acquired the said property by a patta issued by the Authorities in the year 1930. The property is bounded on the North by a Government land; on the South by Road No. 13; on the East by land in Survey No. 129175 belonging to Mis H 632 BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 633 LRS. & ORS. Hyderabad Industries Limited and in the West by the land A belonging to K in Survey No. 129/36. Respondent No.1 leased out the said land to Mis Hyderabad Industries Limited by a registered lease deed. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice to the respondent No.1 u/s 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, B 1905 to vacate the land within 3 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The respondents then filed writ petition challenging the notice. The Single Judge of High Court quashed the writ petition with leave to the Government to file a suit to get its title established. The C Mandal Revenue Officer filed Writ Appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal directing the status quo to be maintained for a period of three months from the date of the order to enable the Government to take appropriate steps in the matter. D + However, the Government did not take any steps to establish its title over the said land. Appellant-Authorities made constructions over the land in question. Respondent No.1 then filed a contempt petition on the ground of disobedience of the orders passed by the High E Court. On the other hand, the State initiated proceedings against the respondent No.1 u/s 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 alleging that the land in question under the occupation of the respondent No.1 was a government land. The Division Bench of High Court F held that it was proved that the Mandal Revenue Officer and also the other superior authorities disobeyed the orders passed by the High Court and as such committed contempt of court. It observed that no purpose would be served to the respondent if direction is given to handover G the vacant possession of the property. The court directed the appellant-authorities to pay compensation to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard as valued by the State in the application filed u/s.8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act against the predecessor-in- H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A interest of the respondent, in case the land grabbing case was dismissed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. Hence the present appeals. Appellants contended that both the Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court failed to take 8 notice of the fact that the land on which the construction work was carried on was not the land which the respondent No.1 had purportedly acquired from P and that the same had been leased out to M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited; that since the said la
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.