Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY versus MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, A.P.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 28-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 872 
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY 
v. 
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, A.P. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 2002) 
AUGUST 28, 2009 
[B.N. AGRAWAL, G. S. SINGHVI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 
- Permission to land grabber to continue in possession of the 
C land on payment of its market value - Held: Land grabber 
cannot be permittnd to continue in illegal possession of the 
land on payment of compe!Jsation equal to its market value . 
.,,J'' 
I 
4;. 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 136 - Dismissal, of 
.I 
D SLP in limine - Does not amount to clear affirmation of High 
Court order. 
Precedent - Dismissal of SLP in /imine - Does not 
constitute a binding preccident. ' 
· 
E 
Respondent-Officer filed an application before Land 
Grabbing Tribunal alleging that the appellant had grabbed 
a Government land. Appellant admitted that the land 
described in the application was Government land, but 
sought its assignment in his favour on the ·ground that 
F the land, around it were owned by him. Tribunal directed 
the appellant to give possession of the land to the 
respondent-Officer. On appeal, Special Court remitted the 
matter to Tribunal to ascertain as to whether the land was 
required for.any·pu~lic purpose and what was the market 
G value of the land. Tribunal ascertained the market value, 
but held that it could not be assigned to appellant as it 
might be required for some public purpose. On appeal 
against. the order, Special Cou~ held that the land would 
be assigned to the appellant as he is having lands, 
H 
872 
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 873 
OFFICER, AP. 
~ 
surrounding the land in question it was in his possession 
A 
.. 
for a long time. He was held to be entitled to possession 
on payment of market value of the land as compensation. 
High Court set aside the order of Special Court holding 
that neither Tribunal nor Special Court had the authority 
to determine market value nor could they direct the B 
owner of the land, to receive such amount from land 
grabber in lieu of his continued possession. They also 
... 
~ 
did not have the authority to determine as to whether the 
lad was required for public purpose. Hence the present 
appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The land in question undeniably belongs 
-.,.. 
to the Government and the appellant has been held to be 
"land grabber" within the meaning of section 2(d) of A.P. 
D 
,,.._ 
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. In view nf the 
objects and reasons of the Act, it should not be C"pen to 
... 
the Tribunal or the Special Court constituted under it, to 
allow a 'land grabber' to continue in possession oyer the 
Government land on payment of its market value as E 
c·ompensation would amount to breaking open an 
escape-hatch to denude the Act of its very object and 
purpose. [Paras 13 and 15] [880-8; 881-C-D] 
~ 
1.2. From the plain and unambiguous language of F 
Section 8(7) of the Act, it is impossible to deduce that it 
empowers and authorises the Tribunal or the Special 
Court to allow the 'land grabber' to continue in his/her 
illegal possession of the land on payment of its market 
value to the land owner. The compensation envisaged by 
G 
the provision is not for continued illegal possession in 
'--. 
_,__ 
future, but for wrongful possession of the grabbed land 
by the "land grabber" in the past. In case compensation 
is awarded it would be recover~ble, along with the cost 
of re-delivery, as arrears of land revenue in case the 
owner of the land is the Government. [Para 17) [882-8-C] H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q_09] 1~ (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. The wrong notion that the Special Courts have 
~ 
the power and authority to decline restoration of 
'4
possession of the grabbed land in favour of its owner and 
in lieu of restoration of possession direct the 'land 
grabber' to make payment of compensation equal to its 
B market value has its roots in an earlier judgment of the 
High Court, i.e. C.P. Roy's case*. In the case of CP Roy, 
the High Court completely misread Section 8(7) and gave 
it a meaning completely opposite to what is said in it. 
... 
[Para 22] [884-F] 
c 
C.P. Roy vs. Special Court, under A.P. Land Grabbing 
Act and Anr., 2000(3) ALO 766 (O.B.), disapprnved. 
2. Even though Special Leave Petitions from the High 
Court judgment in CP Roy and two other Special Leave 
....,..
D Petitions were also similarly dismissed by this Court, the 

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