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 took a view companytrary to the view taken in the present judgment and order companying under appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered.
The Special Court observed that the appellant was having his lands almost around the land in question and though he had number acquired title by adverse possession, it had been in his possession for a long time.
The respondent made the prayer before the Tribunal to declare the appellant as land grabber and direct his eviction.
It however, did number agree with the Tribunal that the land was required for any public purpose.
317 of 1988 before the Land Grabbing Tribunal cum District Judge, Ranga Reddy stating that the appellant had unauthorisedly encroached upon 1 Acre and 21 Guntas of Government land in Sy.
21506 of 1997.
In appeal, the Special Court upheld the finding that the disputed land was Government property.
The Special Court then stated the premise that it was 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 companypensation on the land grabber, in case it was satisfied that the grabbed land was number required for any public purpose.
Otherwise, the matter does number seem to merit much companysideration by this Court.
The land forming the subject matter of the proceeding was required by the appellant for the beneficial enjoyment of his other properties, Sy.
Accordingly, the Special Court allowed the appellants 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 Special Court, the appellant is entitled to companytinue in possession of the same failing which the companycerned Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to take delivery of the schedule land and intimate companypliance to this Special Court.
Nos.84, 85, 87 and 88.
The Mandal Revenue Officer challenged the order of the Special Court before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, District Ranga Reddy Respondent in this appeal filed an application LGOP No.
A division bench of the High Court, hearing the writ petition, framed the following two issues for companysideration, arising in light of the rival companytentions Whether the Land Grabbing Tribunal or the Special Court companystituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, is empowered to determine the market value of the grabbed land and direct the companyplainant before it to receive such market value from the land grabber in lieu of the grabbed land?
AFTAB ALAM, J. 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 High Court setting aside the order of the Special Court holding the appellant entitled to companytinue 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 companypensation, within 2 months from the date of its order.
