Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1187 - SC - Indian LawsLand grabber under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act - nature of Property in question - building or land - Maintainability of application - building with its appurtenant land - the property in question is a building or land - Special Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of a house property with its appurtenant open land or not? - HELD THAT:- 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. As per Section 1(3), the Act applies to all lands situated within the limits of urban agglomeration as defined in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and a Municipality. As per Section 1(3-A), the Act applies also to any other lands situated in such areas as the Government may, by notification, specify. In view of such inclusive definition of `land', grabbing a building attached to the earth amounts to land grabbing for the purposes of this Act. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the Act applies 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 by the vacant land, it cannot be said that it is a case of grabbing of land" - The distinction drawn by the High Court between "building with appurtenant land" and "land along with building" is artificial and hyper-technical and it defeats the very purpose of the legislation. In the light of the definition of `land' under Section 2(c) of the Act, both the above descriptions practically mean the same thing vis-`-vis `land grabbing' and there is no logic or justification for drawing a distinction between them. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the application filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal. The High Court also 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 grabbing under the Act. When the land along with the building existing thereon is occupied, it will amount to land grabbing - the application filed by the appellant under Section 7-A of the Act before the Special Tribunal was maintainable and that the Special Tribunal had necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised therein. The impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the order of the Special Tribunal and judgment of the Special Court are liable to be restored - Appeal allowed.
|