M/S MAHALAXMI MOTORS LTD. versus MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 10-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS MAHALAXMI MOTORS LTD. 
v. 
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: 
C 
ss. 2(e),4 and 8(1)-Landgrabbing-Suit lands vested in State 
Government-Application for occupancy certificate by a person 
claiming himself as lnamdar of suit lands rejected-The said person 
sold the suit land-Vendee raised constructions thereon-His 
application for regularization rejected-Meanwhile application u/s 8(1) 
D filed by State Government, allowed by Special Court-Order affirmed 
by High Court-HELD: Definition of 'land grabber' is not restricted 
to party to proceedings but also includes his predecessor-in-interest-
Only because a person has entered into possession of land on the basis 
of a purported sale deed, the same by itself would not be sufficient to 
E hold that he did not enter over the land unauthorisedly, unfairly or 
greedily-Question whether the land grabber has grabbed the land or 
not, ordinarily is required to be determined as on the date of filing of 
the application-An averment in the application u/s 8 that the procedee 
had been in unlawful possession itself is sufficient to invoke provisions 
of the Act-Pendency of an application for regularization of land 
F would not stand in the way of the State to initiate proceedings under 
the Act-The facts of the matter squarely cover the ingredients of s. 2(e) 
of the Act-Doctrine of estoppel-Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) 
Abolition of 1nams Act, 1955-Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment 
Act, 1905. 
G 
Land grabbing-Jurisdiction of Special Court. 
One' R' claiming ownership of certain lands as Inamdar, applied 
for occupancy certificate from the State Government. His application 
was rejected. 'R' then transferred the said lands by executing two 
H 
964 
;:i 
~ 
) 
I 
MIS MAHALAXMI MOTORS LTD. v. MANDAL 
REVENUE OFFICER 
965 
registered sale deeds in January 1985 in favour of the appellant, and A 
thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court, which by its 
order dated 63.1987 held that in view of s. 3(1) of the A.P. (T elangana 
Area) Abolition oflnams Act, 1955 Act, the lands in question had 
vested in the State. The said judgment attained finality. Despite this, 
the appellant raised constructions on the suit lands. A notice under B 
the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued to the appellant 
describing it as 'encroacher' of the suit land, which was 
unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before 
the High Court. The appellant also filed an application before the 
State Government for regularization of the lands which was C 
dismissed. The said order was challenged by the appellant in a writ 
petition before the High Court. Meanwhile an application against 
the appellant in terms of s. 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing 
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 was filed praying, inter alia, for eviction of 
the appellant from the suit lands declaring it as land grabber and 
for punishing it u/s 4(3) of the Act. The Special Court allowed the D 
said application. The writ petition of the appellant having been 
dismissed, it filed the instant appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant, inter alia, that the Special 
Court as also the High Court erred in not considering that the E 
respondent neither pleaded nor proved the ingredients of the terms 
'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' as defined in the Act; that the 
appellant having entered into possession pursuant to registered sale 
deeds, it was not questionable under the Act; that during the 
pendency of the application of the appellant for regularization of the 
lands in question, the application u/s 8 of the Act was not F 
maintainable. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land 
-f 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 exercises jurisdiction of the Civil G 
Court, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure being applicable; 
and, therefore, all questions relating to title and possession can be 
gone into by it. The proceedings can be initiated in terms of Section 
4 of the said Act against a person who continues to be in occupation, 
othenvise than as a lawful tenant, of a grabbed land belonging to the H 
I 
__ \ 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. \ 
A Government, local authority, religious or charitable institution or 
endowment including a wakf, or any private person. If and when 
proceedings are initiated under the Act, the proceedee not only c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.