SAFIYA BEE versus MOHD. VAJAHATH HUSSAIN ALIAS FASI

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 1253 · Decided: 16-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 O] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1253 
SAFIYA BEE 
v. 
MOHD. VAJAHATH HUSSAIN ALIAS FAS/ 
(Civil Appeal No. 10664 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 16, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: 
A 
B 
ss. 7 A, 2(e) and 2(c) - Land grabbing - Application u/s. . c 
7 A before Special Tribunal seeking possession of building 
along with its appurtenant land - Maintainability of - Held: 
Subject matter of the dispute was the building and the 
appurtenant open land - When land along with the building 
existing thereon is occupied, it would amount to land grabbing D 
- Thus, application uls. 7 A before the Special Tribunal was 
maintainable -
High Court erred in holding that only 
occupation of the open land and construction of a building 
thereon can be treated as land grabbing and that occupation 
of a building along with open land cannot be treated as land E 
graf?bing under the Act - Land grabbing - Jurisdiction . 
. s. 2(c) - 'Land' - Meaning of 
Precedent - Principle of - Held: Statement of the law by 
a Bench is. considered binding on a Bench of the same or F 
lesser number of judges - In case of doubt or disagreement 
about the decision of the earlier Bench, well accepted and 
desirable practice is that the later Bench would refer the case 
. to a larger Bench - On facts, the Division Bench of the High 
Court was not right in over-ruling the statement of law by a co-
G 
ordinate Bench of equal strength - Judicial discipline and 
practice required them to refer the issue to a larger Bench -
Judicial discipline. 
The appellant had purchased a building alongwith 
1253 
H 
1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the appurtenant lands from by a sale deed. The building 
was forcibly occupied by the respondent. The appellant 
filed an application under Section 7-A of the Andhra 
Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against 
the respondent seeking possession of the property. The 
B Special Tribunal allowed the application directing the 
respondent to deliver the property to the appellant. The 
respondent filed an appeal before the Special Court 
which held that the application before the Special 
Tribunal was not maintainable as it was in respect of a 
c house property with its appurtenant land and set aside 
the order of the Special Tribunal. The appellant filed writ 
petition. The High Court remitted back the matter to the 
Special Court for hearing afresh and disposal as to 
whether the property was grabbed by the respondent 
0 and whether he was liable to be evicted. As regards the 
maintainability of the application before the Special 
Tribunal, the High Court held that the Act was applicable 
not only to lands but also to lands with the building. The 
judgment in the writ petition became final. Pursuant 
E thereto, the Special Court upheld the order of the Special 
Tribunal and directed the respondent to deliver the 
property to the appellant. Aggrieved, the respondent filed 
a writ petition. The High Court holding that since the 
dispute in the case was in respect of a bJ..lilding with its 
appurtenant land, the matter would not come squarely 
F within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal, and allowed 
the writ petition and set aside the judgment qf the Special 
Court as well as the order of the Special Tribunal. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1 The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing 
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 was enacted to prohibit the activity 
of land grabbing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to 
provide for matters connected therewith. The definition 
SAFIYA BEE v. MOHD. VAJAHATH HUSSAIN ALIAS 1255 
FASI 
of 'land' under section 2(c) makes it clear that the A 
expression 'land' includes "buildings, structures and 
other things attached to the earth". In view of such 
inclusive definition of 'land', grabbing a building attached 
to the earth amounts to land grabbing for the purposes 
of the Act. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the 
B 
Act was applicable to the land but not to the buildings. 
The High Court was. clearly wrong in holding that "if an 
application is filed seeking possession of building along 
with its appurtenant land, because the building in 
. question is in existence on the land and is surrounded c 
by the vacant land, it cannot be said that it is a case of 
grabbing of land". If a building along with the land on 
which it stands is the subject matter of the a

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