PESARA PUSHPAMALA REDDY versus G. VEERA SWAMY AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 04-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 496 
PESARA PUSHPAMALA REDDY 
v. 
G. VEERA SWAMY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2313 of 2011) 
MARCH 04, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 
- ss. 7 ... A and 8 - Powers of Special Tribunals or Special 
C Courts - Calling for a report of Manda/ Revenue Officer u/r. 
6 before taking cognizance of a case under the Act and 
publication of a Notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gaz::tte 
notifying the fact of cognizance of a case under the Act -
Requirement of- Held: Under s. 7-A ors. 8-A of the Act or r. 
D 6 of the Rules, it is not mandatory for the Special Tribunal or 
the Special Court to call for a report of the Manda/ Revenue 
Officer - However, on the facts of a particular case, the 
Special Tribunal or the Special Court may refer the 
application to the Manda/ Revenue Officer to verify the truth 
E of the statements made in the application and decide the 
case in a just and reasonable manner - In view of.the object 
of ss. 7 A and 8, the publication of a Notification in the Andhra 
Pradesh Gazette notifying the fact of cognizance of a case 
under the Act, is mandatory - It is made mandatory not in the 
F public interest but in the interest of persons who may claim 
title, ownership or lawful possession of such land - If such 
person is a party in the proceedings u/s. 7-A or 8 in the 
Special Tribunal or the Special Court and has notice of the 
same and had opportunity to participate in the proceedings 
G to assert his title, he cannot challenge the proceeding on the 
ground that no notification or notice was published in the 
Andhra Pradesh Gazette - On facts, land grabbers had notice 
of the application uls. 7-A before the Special Tribunal, they · 
filed their replies to the application and got the opportunity to 
H 
496 
--
--
PESARA PUSHPAMALA REDDY v. G. VEERA 
497 
SWAMY AND ORS. 
adduce evidence in support of their case and did not suffer A 
any prejudice for non-compliance of the provisions - Thus, 
the High Court was not· right in quashing the proceedings 
before the Special Tribunal on the ground that a notification 
or notice in terms of r. 7(2) had not been issued after taking 
the cognizance of !he case - Orders of the High Court set 
B 
aside and matter is remitted to the High Court to consider 
whether rei'crence to the Manda/ Revenue Officer was 
necessary - Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) 
Rules, 1988 - rr. 6, 7. 
The respondent in the instant appeals, were declared c 
as land grabbers by the Special Tribunal in the separate 
matters. The Special Tribunal directed the Revenue 
Officer to evict the respondents from the land and put 
appellants in the possession of the . land. He respondent 
filed an appeal. The Special Court dismissed the same. 
D 
The respondent filed a writ petition. The High Court 
allowed the same on the grounds that the Special 
Tribunal had not called for a report of the Manda! Revenue 
Officer under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 and had not issued a E 
Notification under Rule 7 of the Rules in the Andhra 
Pradesh Gazette after taking cognizance of the case. 
Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 A reading of the provisions of Sections 7-
A and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing 
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 would show that neither of the two 
Sections requires the Special Tribunal or the Special G 
Court to refer any application or a case for local 
inspection or verification or both by the Manda! Revenue . 
Officer having jurisdiction over the area. Sub-rule (1) of 
Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) 
Rules, 1988 however; provides that every application filed 
H 
-
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or every 
case taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court 
or an application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 7-
A of the Act, before the Special Tribunal, 'may' be referred 
for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal 
B Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the area or by 
any other Officer of the Government authorized by the 
.Court in this behalf. The word 'may' is capable of meaning 
•must' or 'shall' in the light of the context In which the 
word is used and where a discretion is conferred upon 
C a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word 
•may' should be const

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