Both these petitions were heard together.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the said Act states, It was companye to the numberice of the Government that there are organised attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups tograb either by force or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endownment, including a wakf or any other private persons.
By the impugned judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave certain directions which can be summarised as follows The State shall companyvey to the Registrar of the High Court all material pertaining to the qualifications and ability suitability etc.
A Special Court shall companysist of a Chariman and four other members, to be appointed by the Government.
One N, Vekatesh also addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a press clipping relating to the appointments to the Special Court companystituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982, which was treated as a writ petition.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has, therefore, rightly held that the Act which sets up a Special Court for land grabbing eases, is within the legislative companypetence of the State Government.
The Act has since been amended twice once by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987 and again by Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1988, In 1996 a practising advocate filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenginng the companystitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.
1998 3 SCR 463 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MRS.
The present appeals are filed from the above judgment and order.
The relevant parts of Section 7, as it stands at present, are as follows Constitution of Special Courts 1 The Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy enquiry intoany 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 numberification, companystitute a Special Court.
The original petitioners had challenged the companystitutional validity of Section 7 relating to the Special Court.
of the existing incumbents both Judicial Members and Revenue Members of the Special Court companystituted under the said Act forthwith The Registrar shall place the material so received before the Chief Justice of the High Court and shall companyvey the orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court in this behalf to the Chief Secretary to the Governments The State is restrained from making any appointments of Judicial Members and Revenue Members without the companysutation in respect of the selection of such Member Members with the Chief Justice of the High Court and The State shall decide whether any incumbent Judicial member/ Reveune Member shall companytinue after receiving the opinion in this behalf of the Chief Justice of the High Court and such incumbent shall cease to function in case opinion adverse to his companytinance is companyveyed to him.
The land grabbers are framing bogus companyoperative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise The Special Court has been set up under the said Act to deal with such acts of land grabbing, The challenge in the proceedings is to the companystitutional validity of Section 8 relating to the appointments to be made to the Special Court.
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted.
On 29th June, 1982 the State of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Ordinance, 1982.
It was subsequently replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohobition Act, 1962.
