TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd record contrary conclusions. Reliance is placed on Swam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR (1976) SC 232 and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., [2003] 5 SCC 226, paras 14 & 15 at pages 237-238. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the Special Court, established under the Act of 1982, overlooked vital documents of title produced by the occupants of the disputed land and gave undue importance to the fact that in revenue papers, the names of the occupants are not recorded as being in lawful possession of the lands in question. The submission made is that where a Special Court exercising exclusive jurisdiction conferred on it to determine whether the occupant of a land is a 'land grabber' or not, ignores vital piece of evidence and takes decision by giving importance to unimportant facts and circumstances, the power of the High Court under Article 226 & 227 is wide enough to correct such gross errors of the Special Court. Reliance is placed on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., [2003] 6 SCC 675. According to the case of the State, total land in Survey No. 9 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eking implementation of the order of the Board of Revenue mentioned above. The writ petition No. 1683 of 1977 filed by the occupants was allowed by order dated 01.3.1978 of the High Court with issuance of directions to the authorities to implement the order of Board of Revenue dated 06.8.1974 whereunder the rights of the occupants to the land in question were recognised. An option was left to the government to invoke its revisional powers, if available, in accordance with law. After examining the documents of the title and other revenue records produced by the occupants of the land, the Special Court decided against the occupants of the land and held them to be 'land grabbers'. In paragraph 44 of its order, the Special Court records thus : "In none of these surverys, this sixty acres of land said to be belonging to Syed Khasim Silhedar was sub-divided nor separately shown. It does not show separate survey number of this sixty acres of land." Relying on the letter of the Collector (Ex. A-19) sent on a query made regarding existence of records with regard to the claim to ownership of the occupants of the land, the Special Court made following observations : "Ex. C-9 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Fasli (5.11.1903) shows grant of sixty acres of land to Syed khasim. Ex. B-10 is the note file signed by Sikandar Yar Jung. Exs. B-9 and BIO are sent to Khurshid Jahi Paigah Authorities by the Secretary of Sarefkhas. By letter dated 29.4.1917 (Ex.B-11), the Secretary of Sarfekhas Mubarak to the Tahsildar East, Atrafbalda District, stated that sixty acres of land is part of Sarfekhas land of Nizam and since Sayed Khasim's right has been established over that land, arrangement may be made that no one should enter into the possession of Syed Khasim and make entries in revenue records." The High Court summoned the original file (Ex. C-4) of the Sarfekhas property as the Special Court had seen the original record translated in English from Urdu. According to the High Court, the contents of file in Ex. C-4 as to the existence of grant under 'muntakhab' in favour of Syed Khasim could not have been questioned by the Special Court. On the issue of reliability of the contents of file (Ex.C-4) and the document of muntakhab (Ex.B-9), the High Court found apparent mistake committed by the Special Court in holding the document of title as unreliable for want of seal, boundaries and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nagar village was granted as inam to Syed Khasim. He was in possession of that land during his life time. He has taken up proceedings for getting his name mutated in revenue records and the litigation continued. Irrespective of litigation, the documents clearly show that inam was granted to Syed Khasim and he was trying to get his name mutated in revenue records. The petitioner relied on pahani patrikas (Exs. A-2 to A-13 and A-2 to A-28) for the period from 1962-63 to 1986-87, which are for the continuous periods. It is a fact that the name of the son of Inamdar of fifth respondent. It is a fact that the name of the son of Inamdar of fifth respondent has not been mentioned therein. It is to be noticed that since the inception the inamdar, his son and thereafter the fifth respondent were agitating to get the names recorded in revenue records before the Collector. In those circumstances, possibly their names do not find place in the revenue records. Unless the names are mutated in Jamabandi, they cannot be carried over each year. Non-mention of names of the inamdar or his son in revenue records is not fatal to the case of fifth respondent. Exs. A-29 to A-35 are faisal pattis from 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the object and scheme of the Act has to be examined. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for bringing into effect the Act of 1982 is a key to understanding the various provisions of the Act and the terms defined therein. They read thus : "Statement of Object and Reasons :- It 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 a wakf or any other private person. The land grabbers are forming bogus cooperative 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 land, it was felt necessary to arrest and curb such unlawful ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. Sub-section (6) of section 8 makes the finding of the Special Court on the question of title and ownership of the land alleged to have been grabbed as final and binding on all persons having interest in such land. Sub-section (6) of section 8 reads thus : "Section 8(6). - Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land. Under Section 9, powers of civil court have been conferred on Special Court and it is deemed to be a civil court for the purposes mentioned therein: "9. Special Court to have the powers of the Civil Court of and the Court of Session :- Save as expr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra), this Court, after examining the scheme of the Act, held : "To make out a case in a civil case that the appellant is a land grabber the first respondent must aver and prove both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention - that the appellant falls in the categories of the persons, mentioned above [clause (d) of section 2 of the Act], has occupied the land in dispute, which belonged to the first respondent, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to or with the intention of illegally taking possession of such land or entering into land for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act, summarised above. What needs to be looked in the present controversy is : whether the appellant has any lawful entitlement (proprietary or possessory) to the land in dispute and had come into possession of the land in dispute unauthorisedly". The Division Bench in that case further observed : "A mere prima facie bona fide claim to the land alleged to be grabbed by such a person, cannot avert being roped in within the ambit of the expression "land grabber". What is germane is lawful entitlement to and not a mere pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereby. No doubt, it was held that neither in exercise of power of writ under Article 226 nor in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in the re- appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognised even in the case of Swarn Singh & Anr. (supra) on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the State. The relevant observations are : In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. After detailed examination of the findings of the Special Court and the contrary findings recorded by the High Court, we do not find that the High Court has in any manner exceeded its writ jurisdiction. The Special Court declared the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of their rights as inamdars by virtue of the grant of the Ex Ruler in their favour. The Special Court on unsubstantial grounds had rejected their claims to title and possession of the land. The High Courts in its writ jurisdiction was, therefore, fully justified in examining those documents of title and upsetting the judgment of the Special Court on the ground that material evidence and circumstances proved by the occupants were overlooked in holding the occupants as land grabbers. In the course of hearing of these appeals, the relevant documents of title were placed before us for perusal and translated copies of the same have been supplied to us in the form of an additional paper-book. We have heard the parties and ourselves looked into the papers to find that there exists overwhelming record of title and possession of the land in favour of the occupants and they could not have been termed as 'land grabbers'. With the growing menace of land grabbing, the Act, of 1982 constitutes Special Courts and ousts jurisdiction of the regular civil courts in respect of land alleged to have been grabbed. Where the regular remedy povided by general law is ousted by special law, the ....