L.L. SUDHAKAR REDDY AND ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 09-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

L.L. SUDHAKAR REDDY AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: 
S. 8 and 17-A-land alleged to be grabbed-Application by Manda/ 
Revenue Officer before Special Court-Allowed-Writ petition-Dismissed by C 
High Court holding that writ petitioners had opportunity of review uls. 17-A-
Further, they could have filed suit for declaration of title and right-On merits 
High Court justified order of Special Court-Held, High Court having made 
observation that writ petitioners could have availed remedy of review u/s. 17-
A, ought not to have expressed any opinion on merits-As regards remedy of D 
suit, in view of s.8(2), rlws. I 5, in respect of land alleged to be grabbed suit 
for declaration of title by writ petitioners would not be maintainable-Order 
·of High Court set aside-High Court would decide writ petition afresh. 
S.8(2) rlw.s. I 5-land alleged to be grabbed-Title suit in respect of-
He/d not maintainabie. 
Constitution of India, 1950; 
Article 226-Writ petition against order of Special Court under A.P. 
land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-High Court observing that remedy 
E 
of review uls. 17-A was available and also dismissing writ petition on merit 
justifying order ofSpecial Court-Held, High Court should not have expressed F 
any opinion on merits-Andhra Pradesh land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 
1982. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6731 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.1992 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 680 of 1992. 
WITH 
Writ Petition No. 904/1992. 
383 
G 
H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Mr. P.S. Mishra, Mr.A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ms . .S. Rani, 
Mr. Anuarg D. Mathur, for Mis Arputham, Aruna and Co. for the Appellants. 
Ms. K. Amreshwari, Mr. G. Prabhakar and Mr. K. Ram Kumar, for the 
Respondents. 
B 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
CA 673111994. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal 
No. 68011992 dated July 23, 1992, confirming the order of the learned Single 
C Judge passed in W.P. No. 9846/1989 dated June 16, 1992 by which the writ 
petition filed by the appellants, was dismissed. 
The Manda! Revenue Officer, Golconda, representing the State of 
Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent, filed an application under Section 8 of 
D the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act') numbered as LGC 21 of 1988 in the Special Court 
under the Act (for short the Special Court). The material allegation is that 
application was that the first appellant encroached upon the government land 
to an extent of 5 acres in Survey No. 403/1, situated at Shaikpet Village, 
Banjara Road, No. I 0, Hyderabad (for short 'the disputed land'), made plots 
E and sold them to respondents 2 to 15 before the Special Court who were 
treated as interested persons. 
It was alleged that as per the government 
records plot nos. 11, 12 and 13 in Survey No. 403/1 ofShaikpet Village were 
unrecognised plots and were treated as government lands. On that application 
the Special Court took cognizance of the case and issued notification under 
Section 8(6) of the Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) of 
F November 7, 1988. On the material placed by the Revenue Officer as per 
the verification report, persons who had been in possession of the disputed 
land were also issued notices. Though they were parties to LGC 21/88 in the 
Special Court, they are not impleaded in this appeal. The first appellant 
pleaded, interalia, that he had agreed to purchase the disputed land from its 
G owners and possessors, appellants 2 to 4, and obtained possession under the 
agreement for sale. He denied the allegation that he grabbed the disputed 
land. 
After considering the evidence placed on record the Special Court held 
that the government was the owner of the disputed land and that the 
H respondents were land grabbers and ordered them to be evicted from the 
J 
L.L. SUDHAKAR REDDY v. STA TE OF A.P. 
385 
disputed land. It was made clear that notice under proviso to sub-section 7 A 
of Section 8 was not issued. Thus the application filed by the first respondent 
(LGC 21/88) was allowed by the Special Court on June I, 1989. 
Appellants 2 to 4 who were not parties before th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.