JUDGMENT
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records of the first respondent – Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in IA No. 783 of 1997 in LGC No. 261 of 1995 dated 1-9-1997 and to quash the same as illegal, unsustainable and
without jurisdiction and to pass appropriate orders.
2. The principal issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is “Whether the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or the Tribunals constituted thereunder have jurisdiction to entertain cases and grant injunctive reliefs on the basis of complaints that the other party has been ‘attempting to grab the land’?
3. Before we proceed to decide the controversy raised in the writ petition, few facts which are necessary to appreciate the crux of the matter are traced hereunder:
4. Petitioners purchased 6755 square yards of land in Habsiguda in execution of a decree of specific performance in OS No. 54 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Ranga Reddy District, While so, some persons claiming to be the owners of the said land started interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, filed OS No. 736 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munisif Magistrate, Hyderabad East and North for perpetual injunction. On contest, the said suit was decreed holding that the petitioners are in possession of the said property.
5. Respondents 4 to 20 in the writ petition filed OS No. 361 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Hyderabad East and North against the petitioners for certain reliefs. Along with the said suit, they also filed IA No. 2211 of 1993 temporary injunction preventing the petitioners herein from allegedly interfering with their possession. Petitioners also filed OS No. 388 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. Along with the said suit, they also filed IA No. 2417 of 1993 seeking ad-interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The two suits i.e., OS Nos. 361 and 388 of 1993 were
clubbed and are being tried together. However, the two interlocutory applications were decided by a common order dated 9-12-1995. IA No. 2211 of 1993 in OS No. 361 of 1993 filed by the respondents 4 to 20 herein is dismissed while IA No. 2417 of 1993 in OS No. 388 of 1993 filed by the petitioners is allowed by granting ad interim injunction. Being aggrieved by the said common order, respondents 4 to 20 herein filed CMA Nos. 99 and 100 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Range Reddy District. During the pendency of the CMAs, respondents 4 to 20 moved the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short “the Special Court”) filing LGC No. 261 of 1995 with the same allegations and sought the very same relief of permanent injunction. However, petitioners filed IA No. 783 of 1997 contesting the jurisdiction of the Special Court for entertaining the LGC No. 261 of 1995 on the ground that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and prayed the Special Court to decide the objection as a preliminary issue. The respondents 4 to 20 filed CRP No. 4512 of 1997 on the file of this Court seeking transfer of two suits and two CMAs filed before the Civil Courts to the Special Court. However, the respondents withdrew the said CRP. Thereafter, the respondents 4 to 20 moved the Special Court in OP (SR) No. 277 and 278 of 1998 seeking transfer of OS No. 361 of 1993 from the Court of the District Munsif to the Special Court for being tried along with LGC No. 261 of 1995. The Special Court withdrew only the CMAs filed by the respondents without transferring to itself the suit filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsif. On the IA No. 783 of 1997 filed by these petitioners, the Special Court by order dated 1-9-1997 held that it has the jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and that the act of land grabbing includes attempt to grab the land and that the Special Court is competent to entertain such cases also. It is this view of
the Special Court, which is assailed in this writ petition, on various grounds.
6. Sri R. Ravi, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners mainly submitted that the respondents having failed before the civil Courts in their attempt to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properly by the writ petitioners, in order to achieve their object, adopted a different device by filing an application under Sections 7-A(1) and 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition ) Act, 1982 in the Special Court constituted under the Act in LGC No. 261 of 1995 falsely alleging that the lands in question belong to them and that themselves and their vendors have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that the respondents have filed forged and fabricated documents with a view to grab the lands of the writ petitioners without any legal entitlement. He further stated that though the writ petitioners have filed a counter before the Special Court denying all the allegations made against them and took a specific stand that the LGC is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and also filed IA No. 783 of 1997 in the LGC requesting the Special Court to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Special Court as a preliminary issue, however the Special Court by order dated 1-9-1997 erroneously held that it has jurisdiction to entertain not only the cases where the land is actually grabbed by taking physical possession, but also in respect of cases where an attempt is made to grab the land. The learned Counsel submitted that the scheme of the Act is designed for the purpose of providing speedy enquiry on the basis of the allegations of land grabbing and that the Legislature has not contemplated situation arising out of ‘attempt to grab’ the land and has not empowered the Special Courts and the Tribunals constituted under the Act to decide the matters where an attempt is made to grab the land. While elaborating his
submissions on this aspects, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to various provisions under the Act and submitted that the phrase ‘attempt to grab’ is not contemplated any where in the Act and therefore, the Special Court ought not to have entertained the land grabbing proceedings in LGC No. 261 of 1995, in which a preventive remedy, which can be sought only before the competent civil Court has been sought before the Special Court on the premise that there was an attempt to grab the land. The learned Counsel submitted that the Special Court solely relying on the decisions of this Court in J.A. Reddy v. Mir Ahmed Khan, 1991 An. WR 717 and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sathaiah, , erroneously assumed jurisdiction in such cases arising on the basis of the allegations of attempt to grab the land and stated that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Special Court is unsustainable and that the view taken by the Special Court has to be declared as void and the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
7. We have heard Sri Vilas Afzalpurkar on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 7 to 20, Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Mehendar Reddy, Counsel, for Respondent No. 6 who made elaborate submissions.
8. The effort of both the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents is that the Objects and Reasons of the enactment of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 as well as the definition of the statute are the basic guidelines to answer the question of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel stated that the intention of the Legislature has to be examined in the context of the circumstances leading to bringing the enactment which is intended to arrest and curb the unlawful activity of land grabbing by organised attempt on the part of lawless persons
operating in groups to grab either by force, or by deceit or otherwise, lands belonging to the Government or any other private person. According to the learned Counsel, the Legislature was conscious of the fact that in order to achieve the illegal activity of land grabbing, land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain section of people, resulting in large scale accumulation of the unaccounted wealth. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that ‘attempt to grab the land’ also fall within the ambit of the Special Courts or Tribunals constituted under the Act and if restricted meaning to the term ‘land grabbing’ is given, it would negate the purpose for which the enactment is made. They contended that the Special Court has rightly held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the cases arising out of ‘attempt to grab land’ and therefore, pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. In order to appreciate the issue as to whether the Special Courts and the Tribunals constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act have jurisdiction to entertain the applications made on the allegation of ‘attempt to grab the land’ by the applicants against the respondents therein solely on the apprehension that attempts are made by the respondents to grab the lands, it is necessary to trace the background under which this enactment is brought by the Legislature,
10. The Statement of Objects and Reasons given by the Legislature under the Act is as under:
“it is has come to the notice of the Government that there are organised attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab either by force, or by deceit or otherwise
lands belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including wakf or any other private person. The land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and including in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain section of people, resulting in large scale accumulation of the unaccounted wealth. As public order is also adversely affected thereby now and then by such unlawful activities of land grabbers in the State, particularly in respect of urban and urbanisable lands, it was felt necessary to arrest and curb such unlawful activities immediately by enacting a special law in that regard.”
11. The primary object of this legislation seems to be to arrest and curb such unlawful activity of land grabbing committed by various persons in a systematic manner operating individually and in groups as narrated above.
12. Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘land grabber’ to mean “a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorised structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above-mentioned acts, and also includes the successors in interest.”
13. Sub-section (e) of Section 2 of the Act defines “land grabbing” to mean “every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution of endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession
of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licence agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person or rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures; and the term ‘to grab land’ shall be construed accordingly.”
14. Section 2 gives definitions to the phrases used in that Section, which have to be read along with Sections, 7,7-A and 8 of the Act, which are as under:
“Section 7: Constitution of Special Courts :–
(1) The Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing, and trial of cases in respect of the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, by notification, constitute (a Special Court).
(2) ……
(3) …….
Section 7-A relates to the Special Tribunals and its powers, etc.
“Section 7-A: Special Tribunal and its powers, etc. :–(1) Every Special Tribunal shall have power to try all cases not taken cognizance of by the Special Court relating to any alleged act of land grabbing, or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of the land grabbed whether before or after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 1987 and brought before it and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions as it deems fit:
Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Tribunal, any case brought before it is prima facie frivolous, or vexatious it shall reject the same without any further enquiry;
15. Section 8 deals with the procedure and powers of the Special Courts:
8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts :–(1) The Special Court may, either
suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;
(1-A) the Special Court shall, for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case, 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 or any other relevant matter:
Provided that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any such case without hearing the petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding any thing in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) (the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) or in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act 9 of 1972) any case in respect of an alleged act of land grabbing or the determination of questions of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of arty land grabbed under this Act (shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be triable in the Special Court) and the decision of Special Court shall be final. Clause (4) of Section 8 lays down that every case under Sub-section (1) shall be disposed of finally by the Special Court, as far as possible, within a period of six months from the date of institution of the case before it.
16. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, remedies are provided to such persons, where efforts are made to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties can approach the civil Courts seeking permanent injunction restraining the other side from interfering with the properties. Remedy of seeking interim relief by way of ad interim injunction restraining the offenders from interference with the
properties is also provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.
17. The Act extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh and it 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. It also applies to any other lands situated in such area as the Government may by notification specify having due regard to (a) and (b) of (3-A). In almost all these places the civil Courts are also established and in the matters where attempts are made for dispossession of the properties they are being taken cognizance and remedied by the civil Courts. Under the Land Grabbing Act not only civil remedy, but penal remdies to punish the offender imposing fine and also jail term are provided. If the Legislature had desired that the act of ‘attempt to grab land’ shall also be brought within the jurisdiction of the Special Courts and Tribunals constituted under the Act, the Legislature could have defined the phrase ‘attempt to grab’ also in the Act as is done in cases of ‘land grabbing’ and ‘land grabber’ as provided under Sub-sections (d) and (e) of the Section 2 of the Act. From a reading of Sub-sections (d) and (e) of Section 2, Sections 7, 7-A and 8 it is difficult to gather the ‘attempt to grab’ would also fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Courts and Tribunals constituted under the Act.
18. It shall be remembered that these Special Courts/Tribunals shall deal with certain type of cases and therefore, it cannot expand its jurisdiction to bring in its fold the activity of ‘attempt to grab’ also for adjudication. If the Special Courts and Tribunals constituted under the Act are to deal with the cases where attempts to grab the lands is made, it would be exercising concurrent jurisdiction along with civil Courts which are competent to grant injunctive reliefs. If the Special Courts/ Tribunals are to exercise concurrent
jurisdiction along with the Common Law Courts in the cases arising out of ‘attempt to grab the lands’, the object for which the Legislature enacted the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, i.e., to arrest and curb the activity of land grabbing by speedy enquiry, would not be achieved.
19. While interpreting a statue, the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. (Vide Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, . In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Guru Prasanna Singh, Seventh Edition, 1999, the following broad parameters have been laid down for the purpose of interpreting a particular statute, which could be followed by Courts for meaningful interpretation of a particular statute, viz.,
(a) When the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a statute, it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its context i.e., that statute as a whole and the mischief that it was intended to remedy.
(b) To arrive at the true meaning of any particular phrase in a statute, that particular phrase is not to be viewed detached from the context meaning by this as well the title and the preamble as the purview or enacting part of the statute.
(c) While interpreting a statute, hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly to be avoided. While selecting out of different interpretations, Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things. (Vide Holmes v. Bradfield Rural District Council (1949) 1 All ER 381).
The object of the construction of a statute being to ascertain the Will of the Legislature,
it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. If, therefore, literal interpretation would produce such a result, and the language admits of an interpretation which would avoid it, then such an interpretation may be adopted.
20. In the instant case, the Special Court has solely based its decision relying on the two decisions of this Court cited 1 and 2. In the decision cited (supra), the learned Single Judge held that the ‘land grabbed’ can be taken to mean not only the past transactions but the present transactions also and continuing process of grabbing and preventing the real owner from enjoying the properties also.” This view has been reiterated by another learned single Judge in the decision cited (2) supra. In view of our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view, no extended meaning could be assigned to the word ‘land grabbing’ to mean “attempt to grab the land” also. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the proposition laid down by the two learned single Judges in the two decisions cited 1 and 2 supra, does not reflect the correct position of law.
21. It is necessary at this stage to examine other relevant provisions of the Act and also various forms prescribed under the Act and Rules.
22. Section 17(b) of the Act provides guidelines for interpretation of Act, which reads as under:
“Section, 17.B: “Guidelines for interpretation of Act” :–The Schedule shall constitute the guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of this Act.”
The schedule is statement of objects and reasons to the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act which is intended to arrest and curb the activity of land grabbing by speedy enquiry and trial. Section 10 of the Act, imposes burden of proof on the complainant or applicant. Section 10 reads as under:
“Section 10; Burden of proof:–Where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land-grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person.”
23. A plain reading of Section 10 would further make it clear that the burden is always on such person, who approaches the Special Court or the Tribunal, to prove prima facie that he/she/it is the owner of the property and then the burden shifts on the other side to prove that he/she/it has been in lawful possession of the property. This is the crux of the enquiry, which is contemplated under the scheme of the Act.
24. The other aspects which are to be borne in mind in Forms II (A), II (B) and III (A) which are notices prescribed to be issued to the respondents. In the said notices, it is specifically indicated that the schedule mentioned property is grabbed. For better appreciation, the said notices are extracted hereunder.
Form – II (A)
[See Rule 7(1)]
Notice
The Special Court has taken cognizance of the case filed by Sri……………………………. Son of………………………. it is alleged that the land belonging to ………………………………..as specified in the schedule below is grabbed by Sri…………………… son of………………
Notice is hereby given to whomsoever it may concern including the custodian of evacuee property concerned as required under the first proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P. Act 12 of 1982). If any person intends to object he may submit his objections if any
before the Special Court on or before the ………… day of……… 19.. for its consideration.
If no objections are received by the Special Court within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that there are no objections for proceeding further and the case will be proceeded accordingly.
Signature
Designation
Form – II (B)
[See Rule 7(2)]
The Special Tribunal………………………(District) has taken cognizance of the case filed by Sri………… Son of Sri…………It is alleged that the land belonging to ………………………………as specified in the schedule below is grabbed by Sri ……………………………………………….son of Sri……………………….
Notice is hereby given to whomsoever it may concern including the custodian of evacuee property as required under the first proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P. Act 12 of 1982). If any person intends to object he may submit his objections if any to this Special Tribunal ………………..District on or before the day………… (Month)…………. (Year)………. for consideration.
If no objections are received by the said Special Tribunal within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that there were no objections for proceeding further and the case will be proceeded accordingly.
Signature
Designation
Form-III(B)
[See Rule 8 (2)]
Notice
The Special Tribunal has taken cognizance of the case filed by Sri ………………………………… son of …………………………………..it is alleged that the land belonging to ……………………………
Sri as specified in the schedule below is grabbed by Sri …………………………… Son
Notice is therefore given to Sri……………………. son of…………………………… As required under the third proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 7(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P. Act 12 of 1982). If he has any objection he may submit his objection if any before the Special Tribunal on or before the ………………….. day of ……… (Month) ………………… (Year) for its consideration.
If no objections are received by the Special Tribunal within the stipulated time it will be presumed that he has no objection to proceed further and the case will be proceeded accordingly.
Signature
Designation
25. Similarly, Section 7 which deals with the constitution of Special Courts and Section 7-A which relates to the powers of Special Tribunals also lay emphasis that the Special Courts/Tribunals shall have power to try all cases with respect to the alleged land grabbing. It is nowhere mentioned in these sections that the Special Court/ Tribunals shall have power to deal with the cases arising out of “attempts to grab the land”. The Legislature has intentionally omitted conferring jurisdiction on the Special Court/Tribunals to try cases and grant injunctive reliefs arising out of ‘attempts to grab lands’ on the ground that if such jurisdiction is also conferred, the object of bringing out this enactment to try and dispose of the cases of land grabbing as expeditiously as possible would get frustrated and the Special Court/Tribunals would also be like any other civil Court flooded with several cases. Thus, in view of our discussion and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Phillips India Limited’s case (supra) and in the light of the parameters as laid down in the Principles of Statutory
Interpretation, extracted above, what is deducible is that the Legislature never intended to confer jurisdiction on the Special Court/Tribunals to try cases and grant injunctive reliefs arising out of ‘attempts to grab lands’. That being so, assumption of such a jurisdiction upon itself by the Special Court/Tribunals is without authority.
26. As seen from the facts of the case Respondents 4, 5, 7 to 20 having failed to get interim orders from the civil Court, approached the Special Court on the allegations of interference. The litigant approaches the civil Court for injunctive relief and if his/her attempt fails, he can then move the Courts constituted under the Land Grabbing Act for the very same relief. We do not think, the Legislature would have visualised such a situation as is apparent from the facts of this case. The competent civil Court, on the basis of prima facie material, refused to grant interim relief, though CMAs are filed, however, the said CMAs are withdraw by an order of the Special Court. The civil suits filed are not withdrawn, which factor is not disputed by the respondents before us. The Special Court assumed the jurisdiction and decided the LGC No. 261 of 1995 filed by the respondents on the allegation that these petitioners are interfering with the possession and enjoyment without legal entitlement.
27. Having regard to our findings, we set aside the order dated 1-9-1997 made in LGC (SR) No. 34 of 1997 in IA No. 783 of 1997 in LGC No. 261 of 1995 by the Special Court. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.