V. LAXMINARASAMMA versus A. YADAIAH (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 731 
V. LAXMINARASAMMA 
A 
~ 
""' 
v. 
A. YADAIAH (DEAD) AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1849 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
.... 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: 
II 
Jurisdiction - Question as to whether Special Court set 
up under the Act or Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain C' 
dispute relating to ownership and possession - Contrary view 
expressed by co-ordinate Benches - Matter referred to larger 
bench. 
In these appeals, at the time of hearing, parties D 
submitted that contrary view was expressed by 
· coordinate Benches of this Court relating to the dispute 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) 
Act, 1982 and hence matter deserved to be referred to 
Larger Bench. 
E 
Referring the matter to Larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: The view expressed by two Benches of this 
Court are contradictory. In *Kanda Lakshmana Bapuji, it 
was observed that all the questions of ownership, lawful 
F, 
possession can be decided by the Special Court set up 
..... 
-~ 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) 
Act, 1982 and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. In **N. 
Srinivasa Rao, it was held that actual dispossession has 
to be established and questions like acquisition of title 
by adverse possession can be decided only by the Civil G, 
Court. [Paras 3-4) [732-F-G; 734-G] 
--4 
*Kanda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt of A.P. and Ors. 2002 
(3) SCC 258; **N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the 
731 
H , 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 
214 - referred to. 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1849 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2000 of th~ 
High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 15844 of 
1992. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 1850 of 2002. 
M.N. Rao, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh and Y. Vismai 
for the Appellant. 
Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V. 
George and Annam D.N. Rao for the Respondents. 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
2. When the matter was being heard, learned counsel for 
the parties submitted that two decisions of this Court, each 
rendered by two learned Judges expressed contrary views and, 
therefore, the matter deserves to be referred to a larger Bench. 
3. The disputes relate to the Andhra Pradesh Land 
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act'). In Konda 
Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A. P and Ors. (2002 (3) SCC 
258), it was observed that all the questions concerning the civil 
nature of dispute are to be decided by the Special Court set up 
under the Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It was 
specifically mentioned that the questions of ownership, lawful 
possession can be decided by the Special Court and mere 
allegation of land grabbing would suffice. In para 17 it was, inter-
alia observed as follows: 
"17. It is pertinent to note that mere allegation of an act of 
land grabbing is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the 
Special Court. In both Section 7(1) and Section 8(1) of the 
~ 
~ 
A 
).-
...... 
.... 
t 
V. LAXMINARASAMMA v. A. YADAIAH (DEAD) 
733 
AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
Act the phrase "any alleged act of land grabbing" is A 
,,,. 
...... 
employed and not "act of land grabbing". It appears to us 
that it is designedly done by the legislature to obviate the 
difficulty of duplication of trial once in the courts under the 
Act and over again in the ordinary civil court. The purpose 
of the Act is to identify cases involving allegation of land 8 
grabbing for speedy enquiry and trial. The courts under 
the Act are nonetheless civil courts which follow the Code 
~ 
of Civil Procedure and are competent to grant the same 
"' 
reliefs which can be obtained from ordinary civil courts. 
For the purpose of taking cognizance of the case the c 
Special Court is required to consider the location or extent 
or value of the land alleged to have been grabbed or of the 
substantial nature of the evil involved or in the interest of 
justice required and to give an opportunity of being heard 
to the petitioner [sub-section (1-A)]. It is plain that sub-
[) 
section (2) opens with a non obstante clause and 
mandates that notwithstanding anything in the Code of 
Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in 
the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, any case in 
respect of an alleged 

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