TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Land Grabbing Tribunal lacks authority to determine market value or public purpose for grabbed land.</h1> <h3>Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY Versus MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, A.P.</h3> Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY Versus MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, A.P. - 2010 AIR 1440, 2009 (13) SCR 872, 2009 (9) SCC 447, 2009 (12) JT 181, 2009 (12) SCALE 18 Issues Involved:1. Competency of the Land Grabbing Tribunal or Special Court to determine the market value of grabbed land and direct the complainant to receive such market value.2. Authority of the Land Grabbing Tribunal or Special Court to examine whether a particular grabbed land is required for public purpose.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competency to Determine Market Value and Direct Compensation:The primary issue was whether the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, has the power to determine the market value of the grabbed land and direct the complainant to accept such market value from the land grabber in lieu of the land. The High Court held that the Tribunal or Special Court, except for determining compensation for wrongful possession, does not have the power to determine the market value of the grabbed land and direct the landowner to accept it in lieu of possession. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that Section 8(7) of the Act does not empower the Tribunal or Special Court to allow a land grabber to continue in illegal possession on payment of market value. The compensation mentioned in Section 8(7) is for past wrongful possession, not for future continued possession. The Court found that interpreting the Act to allow land grabbers to retain possession by paying market value would undermine the Act's purpose.2. Authority to Examine Public Purpose Requirement:The second issue was whether the Tribunal or Special Court has the authority to determine if the grabbed land is required for public purpose. The High Court concluded that neither the Tribunal nor the Special Court is empowered to make such determinations, as this authority is exclusively vested with the competent Government. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the Act does not provide the Tribunal or Special Court with the jurisdiction to decide on the necessity of land for public purposes. This interpretation aligns with the Act's objective to curb land grabbing activities effectively.Additional Considerations:The Supreme Court also addressed an earlier judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.P. Roy vs. Special Court, which had incorrectly interpreted Section 8(7) to mean that the Special Court could allow land grabbers to retain possession by paying compensation. The Supreme Court clarified that this interpretation was erroneous and contradicted the clear language of the Act. The dismissal of Special Leave Petitions related to the C.P. Roy case did not constitute a binding precedent, reinforcing the Supreme Court's interpretation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Land Grabbing Tribunal or Special Court does not have the authority to determine the market value of grabbed land for the purpose of allowing land grabbers to retain possession, nor can it decide on the public purpose requirement of the land. The judgment emphasizes the Act's purpose to prohibit land grabbing and ensure the rightful restoration of grabbed land to its owner.
TaxTMI 