Holding

A land grabber cannot be permitted to continue in possession of government land by paying its market value; Section 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 authorises only compensation for past wrongful possession, not for continued illegal occupation.

Summary

The appellant, Y. Satyanarayana Reddy, occupied 1 acre 21 guntas of government land in Lingojiguda, Andhra Pradesh. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed a land‑grabbing petition, leading the Land Grabbing Tribunal to order eviction. The Special Court, however, remitted the matter, later allowing the appellant to retain possession upon payment of the land’s market value, reasoning that the land was not required for a public purpose. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside that order, holding that neither the Tribunal nor the Special Court could award such compensation in lieu of restoring possession. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, interpreting Section 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 to permit only compensation for past wrongful possession, not continued illegal occupation, and dismissed the appeal. The Court also clarified that dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in limine does not create binding precedent.

Issues considered

Whether the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the Special Court can determine the market value of grabbed land and direct the land owner to receive that amount from the land grabber in lieu of restoring possession.
Whether the Tribunal or Special Court has authority to decide if the grabbed land is required for a public purpose.
Whether a dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine constitutes a binding precedent.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982s. 17-B, s. 2(d), s. 8(7)
Revenue Recovery Act

Subjects

land grabbingcompensationmarket valuespecial courtpublic purposeAndhra PradeshSection 8(7)illegal possessionprecedentSLP dismissal

Judgment

[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 872

.A Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY
v.
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, A.P.
(Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 2002)
AUGUST 28, 2009
B
[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
.I
of India, 1950 -Article 136 - Dismissal, of
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
the provision is not for continued illegal possession in G
'--. _,__ 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 ~
'4'
the power and authority to decline restoration of
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
same were dismissed in limine. In one of the cases ~
though the SLP was dismissed in limine,- the question of
law was kept open. It is well-settled that the dismissal of
a Special Leave Petition in limine does not amount to a
E clear affirmation of the High Court decisions and it does
not constitute any binding precedent. [Para 24 and 25]
[885-B-E]

Workmen vs. Boarcfof Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust,
(1978) 3 SCC 119; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. State of
F Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 146; Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187; CIT vs.
Shree Manjunatheaware Packing Products and Camphor
Works, (1998) 1 SCC 598; P. Nallammal and Anr. Vs. State,
(1999) 6 SCC 559; UP State Road Transport Corporation vs.
G Omaditya Verma and Ors. (2005) 4 sec 424, relied on.

Case Law Reference: -t
2000 (3) ALO 766 (O.B.) disapproved. Para 21

H
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 875
OFFICER, AP.

- "' (1978) 3 sec 119
(1986) 4 sec 146
relied on

relied on
Para 25

Para 25
A

(1989) 4 sec 187 relied on Para 25
(1998) 1 sec 598 relied on Para 25
B
(1999) s sec 559 relied on Para 25

-. (2005) 4 sec 424 relied on

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
Para 25

2432 of 2002. c
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.6.2001 of the High
Court of Andhr Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 21506 of
._ 1997.
D
~ D. Bharathi Reddy, D. Ramakrishna Reddy for the
Appellant.
..... I. Venkatanarayanan, Manoj Saxena, T.V. George for the
Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. This appeal arises from a proceeding
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,
1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the appellant
seeks to challenge the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh F
High Court setting aside the order of the Special Court holding
the appellant entitled to continue in possession over the
government land under his unauthorised occupation on payment
of Rs.15,50,000/- (being the market value of the land,
determined by the Court, as on the date of the order), as G
compensation, within 2 months from the date of its order.
+
2. What perhaps led to the grant of leave for this appeal
and what obliges us to dispose it of by writing a proper judgment
is an earlier decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A' took a view contrary to the view taken in the present judgment -f. ~

and order coming under appeal. Otherwise, the matter does
not seem to merit much consideration by this Court.

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal,
District Ranga Reddy (Respondent in this appeal) filed an
B
application (LGOP No. 317 of 1988) before the Land Grab~ing
Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy stating that the
appellant had unauthorisedly encroached upon 1 Acre and 21
Guntas of Government land in Sy.No.86 of village Lingojiguda -+ ~

at Saroornagar Mandal. It was further stated that the land in
c question was covered by G.O.Ms. No.1122 dated 21/6/1961
and the land in the Lingojiguda village was mentioned at Serial
No.16 in Annexure 4 of 'list of villages' falling under Urban
spread area where assignment is totally prohibited under
G.O.Ms. No.1409 dated 19/8/1978. It was also stated that the ~
D land in question was meant for public purpose. The respondent
~
made the prayer before the Tribunal to declare the appellant
as "land grabber" and direct his eviction.

4. The appellant filed his counter in which he admitted that
E the land forming the subject-matter of the proceeding was
Government land. He, however, took the plea that the land in
question was surrounded from all sides by his land and he was,
therefore, eligible to seek assignment of the area under his
occupation in terms of G.O.Ms. No.1406 dated 25/7/1958. He ,.
F further stated that in regard to that piece of land he had
instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction '
which was pending adjudication.

5. In the first round the Tribunal found and held that the land
forming the subject-matter of the proceeding was in fact
G Government land and the appellant was in its unauthorised
occupation. It, accordingly, directed the appellant to hand over
possession of the land to the respondent. In appeal, however, + <

the Special Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal asking
it to consider whether or not, the disputed land was required
H for any public purpose. Further, in case it was not required for
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 877
OFFICER, A.P. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

"'1 ~ any pµblic purpose what would be its market value, on the date A
of the order, having regard to the nature of its use?

6. In the second round the Tribunal, by its order dated 6
March, 1996, found and held that the land forming the subject-
matter of the proceeding could be used for providing house
B
sites to weaker sections and it was, therefore, required for
public purpose. It further observed that allowing the appellant
to continue in possession of the disputed land on payment of
t- compensation would defeat the purpose of providing house
sites to the weaker sections. However, as required by the
Special Court, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the market c
value of the land and fixed its value, as on the date of the order,
at Rs.10 lakhs per Acre. In light of its findings, the Tribunal held
that the disputed land could not be assigned to the appellant
........ who was a "land grabber" and he was liable to hand over
possession of the disputed land to the respondent. Hence, the D
-..... Tribunal once again allowed the petition filed by the respondent
and directed the appellant to hand over possession of the land
.-. to the Government authorities within two months from the date
of the order failing which the Mandal Land Revenue Officer
would be free to take possession of the disputed land. E

7. In appeal, the Special Court upheld the finding that the
disputed land w9s Government property. It however, did not
agree with the Tribunal that the land was required for any public
,.J

purpose. The Special Court then stated the premise that it was F
open to the Court to deny restoration of possession of the
grabbed land to its owner (in this case the State Government)
and in lieu of possession levy compensation on the "land
grabber", in case it was satisfied that the grabbed land was not
required for any public purpose. The Special Court observed
G
that the appellant was having his lands almost around the land
+ in question and though he had not acquired title by adverse
possession, it had been in his possession for a long time. The
land forming the subject-matter of the proceeding was required
by the appellant for the beneficial enjoyment of his other
H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A properties, Sy. Nos.84, 85, 87 and 88. Accordingly, the Special --+-- ~

Court allowed the appellant's appeal vide order dated 24
September, 1996 and gave the following direction:

"Accordingly, in the event of the appellant depositing the
sum of Rs.15,50,000/- within two months from today in this
B
Special Court, the appellant is entitled to continue in
possession of the same failing which the concerned
Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to take delivery of _..
the schedule land and intimate compliance to this Special
Court. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered. No costs."
c
8. The Mandal Revenue Officer challenged the order of the
Special Court before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.
No. 21506 of 1997.
~
D 9. A division bench of the High Court, hearing the writ
petition, framed the following two issues for consideration, ......
arising in light of the rival contentions:

E
1. Whether the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the Special
Court constituted under the A. P. Land Grabbing
--
(Prohibition) Act, is empowered to determine the
market value of the grabbed land and. direct the
complainant before it to receive such market value
from the land grabber in lieu of the grabbed land?
t
F 2. Whether the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the Special
Court has the power to examine the question as to
whether a particular grabbed land is required for
public purpose or not?

10. On a detailed consideration of the different provisions
G of the Act, the High Court answered the first issue as follows:
...
"Having regard to our above discussion, we have no
hesitation to hold that the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the
*
Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Act
H except having the competency of determining the
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 879
OFFICER, A.P. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

.... ~ compensation to be paid to the land owner by the land A
grabber for wrongful possession, has no power or authority
to determine the market value of the grabbed land and
direct the land owner to receive such market value from
the land grabber in lieu of the grabbed land to be retained
by the land grabber." 8
It answered the second issue as follows:

"Neither the scheme of the A.P. Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 nor the provisions contemplated
thereunder, empower the Land Grabbing Tribunals or c
Special Court, to go into the question as to whether a
particular land is required for public purpose or not, which
domain is exclusively vested with the competent
~ Government"
D
.... 11. We have carefully gone through the High Court

.. judgment coming under appeal and we find no infirmity in it. On
the contrary we are in full agreement with the view taken by the
High Court.

12. The counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that E
the Tribunal and the Special Court were fully competent to hold,
in an appropriate case, that the "land grabber'' could remain in
possession of the land on payment of its market value as
.... compensation. In other words, the Tribunal or the Special Court
could ask the Government to accept the market value of the F
grabbed land as compensation instead of restoring the
Government's possession over the grabbed land. The learned
counsel contended that the view taken by the High Court that
the Tribunal or the Special Court did not have the power or
authority to determine the market value of the grabbed land and G
direct the land owner to accept the value of the grabbed land
+ as compensation in lieu of restoration of possession was
contrary to law. In support of the contention, apart from an
earlier judgment of the High Court (which was not cited before
the Bench hearing the present matter!), he relied upon section H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (AODL.) S.C.R.

A 8(7) and certain guidelines framed under section 17-B and put
in'the schedule to the Act.
+ ..
~ 3. Before proceeding to examine the provisions referred
to by the learned counsel, we may note that the land in question
·s ,undeniably belongs to the Government and the appellant has
been held to be "land grabber" within the meaning of section
2(d) of the Act.

14. The·Act has a 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' that
spells ·out in detail the necessity for the enactment. 'It will be
c useful to reproduce it here in full:

"An Act to prohibit the activity of land
.... grabbing in the
State of Andhra Pradesh and to provide for matters ·
connected therewith.
~
D Whereas 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 (whether belonging to the Government, a local
...
authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment,
E including a wakf, or any other private persons) who are
known as "land grabbers"

And whereas such land grabbers are forming bogus
·co-operative housing .societies or setting up fictitious t-
·F claims and indulging in large scale and unprecedented and
fraudulent sales and lands belonging to the Government,
a local authority, a religi9us or charitable institution or
endowment including a wakf, or private persons, through
unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of
certain sections of the people resulting in large
G
accumulation of unaccounted wealth and quick money to
land grabbers; +
And whereas, having regard to the resources and
influence of the persons by whom, the large scale on which
H and' the manner in which, the unlawful activity of land
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 881
OFFICER, AP. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
~· grabbing was, has been or is being organised and carried A
on in violation by law by them, as land grabbers in the State
of Andhra Pradesh, and p·articularly in its urban areas, it
is necessary to arrest and curb immediately such unlawful
activity of land ·grabbing;
B
And whereas public order is adversely affected by
such unlawful activity of land grabbers."

15. In view of the afore-stated objects and reasons of the
Act, to contend that it should be open to the Tribunal or the
Special Court constituted under it to allow a "land grabber" to c
continue in possession over the Government land on payment
of its market value as compensation would amount to breaking
open an escape-hatch to denude the Act of its very object and
purpose.
D
.,.. 16. Bearing this in mind let us examine the provisions of
Section 8(7) of the Act, relied upon by the appellant. Section 8
deals with the procedure and power of Special Courts and its
sub-section (7) reads as follows:

"(7) It shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass such E
order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It
may award compensation in terms for wrongful possession
of the land grabbed which shall not be less than an amount
+ equivalent to the market value of the land grabbed as on
the date of the order and profits accrued from the land F
payable by the land grabber to the owner of the grabbed
land and may direct re-delivery of the grabbed land to its
rightful owner. The amount of compensation and profits, so
;·
awarded and cost of re-delivery, if any, shall be recovered
as an arrear of land revenue in case the Government is G·
the owner, or the decree of a Civil Court, in any other. case
to be executed· by the Special Court:

Provided that the Special Court shall, before passing
an order under this sub-section, give to the land grabber H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A an opportunity of making his representation or of adducing +
evidence, if any, in this regard, and consider every such
representation and evidence."

17. From the plain and unambiguous.language of the sub-
section it is impossible to deduce that it empowers and
B
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 the provision is not for continued
illegal possession in future, but for wrongful possession of the
c grabbed land by the "land grabber" in the past. In case
compensation ~s awarded it would be recoverable, along with
the cost of re-delivery, as arrears of land revenue in case the
owner of the land is the Government.

D 18. To us the meaning of the section 8(7) is quite clear and
we find that the provision is capable of only one meaning. But +-
the counsel for the appellant submitted the opening sentence
of the sub-section, "It shall be lawful for the Special Court to
pass such order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of
E justice" made the meaning of the provision quite vague and its
correct meaning was required to be understood with reference
to the guidelines in the Schedule to the Act. ;In this regard he
referred to section 17-B that reads as under:

"17-B. Guidelines for interpretation of Act:- The Schedule
F shall constitute the guidelines for the interpretation and
implementation of the Act."

19. He then took us to the Schedule and placed before
us a passage from clause 5 reading as under: ..-
G
" ... In order to advance the cause of justice, the
·special Tribunal is empowered to mould the relief. It can + -
award not only compensation in terms of money but also
award profits accrued from the land and direct restoration
of land to the rightful owner. In case compensation and
H
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 883
OFFICER, AP. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

profits are awarded to the Government, in order to ensure A
quick recovery the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act are
made applicable ... "

20. We are completely unable to see how the above
passage can support the contention being advanced on behalf
8
of the appellant. It is clear to us that the above passage says
something quite opposite to what is contended by the appellant.
The learned counsel laid stress on the opening sentence of the
guideline, according to which the Tribunal was "empowered to
mould the relief'. The sentence is not to be read in isolation,
but along with what follows it and in light of the provisions of C
the Act as contained in section 8(7) that is already noted above.

21. It appears that this patently wrong notion that the
Special Courts have the power and authority to decline
restoration of possession of the grabbed land in favour of its D
owner and in lieu of restoration of possession direct the "land
grabber'' to make payment of compensation equal to its market
value has its roots in an earlier judgment of the High Court, on
which great reliance was placed by the appellant, in C.P. Roy
vs. Special Court, under A.P. Land Grabbing Act and Anr., E
2000 (3) ALO 766 (D.B.). In that case a Division Bench of the
High Court, in paragraph 56 of the judgment, made the following
observation.
+ "56. Section 8 of sub-section 7 of the Land Grabbing Act
give powers to the Special Court that in case where it is F
found that the land has been grabbed, in order to see
justice is done, can call upon the grabber to compensate
the State by paying the market price and also damages
in lieu of handing over possession. But before fixing the
market value, an opportunity shall be given to the person G
aggrieved to make a representation or adducing evidence
to determine the correct value. The said section is
extracted herein:

"It shall be lawful for the special court to pass such orders H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] t3 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It may +
award compensation in terms for wrongful possession of
the land grabbed which shall not be less than an amount
equivalent to the market value of the land grabbed as on
the date of the order and profits accrued from the land
_lo.
B payable by the land grabber to the owner of the grabbed
land and may direct re-delivery of the grabbed land to its
rightful owner. The amount of compensation and profits, so
awarded and cost of re-delivery, if any, shall be recovered
as an arrear of land revenue in case the Government is the
c owner, or the decree of a Civil Court, in any other case to
be executed by the Special Court:

Proviso to sub-section 7 of Section 8 reads as follows:

"Provided that the special court shall before passing an
D order under this sub-section, give to the land grabber an
opportunity of making hi? representation or of adducing --1'
evidence, if any, in this regard, and consider such
representation and evidence." "

(emphasis adde-c:i)
E
22. From the portion of the High Court judgment highlighted
above, it is clear that the High Court substituted the words "for
wrongful possession", as appearing in section 8(7) for "in lieu
of handing over possession" of the lands grabbed and thereby
F gave a meaning that is exactly opposite to what is envisaged •
under the section. We have no hesitation in holding that, in the
case of GP Roy, the High Court completely misread section
8(7) and gave it a meaning completely opposite to what is said
in it. -~,

G
23. Learned counsel submitted that Special Leave
Petitions from the High Court judgment in CP Roy (SLP (C) +
Nos. 4397-4400 of 2000] were filed before this Court but those
were all dismissed. He produced before us a copy of the order
dated 9/2/2001 from which it appears that the Special Leave
H
Y. SATYANARAYAN REDDY v. MANDAL REVENUE 885
OFFICER, A.P. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

+ Petitions were dismissed in limine. The order reads as follows: A

"We do not find any justifiable reason to entertain these
petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are, therefore,
dismissed"

24. The counsel submitted that two other Special Leave 8
Petitions were also similarly .dismissed by this Court and
produced copies of two other orders before us. In one of the
orders dated 2613199 in SLP (C) Nos. 4567-4568/97, though
the SLP was dismissed in limine, the question of law was kept
open. C

25. It is well-settled that the dismissal of a Special Leave
Petition in limine does not amount to a clear affirmation of the
- High Court decision and it does not constitute any binding
precedent. (See : Workmen vs. Board of Trustees of the D
i Cochin Port Trust, (1978) 3 SCC 119; Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 146; Supreme Court
Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India, (1989) 4
SCC 187; CIT vs. Shree Manjunatheaware Packing Products
& Camphor Works, (1998) 1 SCC 598; P. Nallammal & Anr. E
vs. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559; UP State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 424)

26. In light of the discussions made above, we find no merit
in the appeal, it is, accordingly, dismissed, but with no order
as to costs. F

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

+