BEDADALA AKKI REDDY Vs. GOVT. OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was unsuccessful before the two Tribunals and the High Court, is before us in this appeal. He was in possession of the land to the extent of 2 acres 39 guntas without any authority of law as an encroacher. The proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ("the Act" for short). The Special Court under the Act, after inquiry, concluded that the appellant was a land grabber and consequently, passed an order under the provisions of the Act directing delivery of possession as well as payment of profits @ Rs. 500.00 per month from 1.3.1986 till the date of delivery of possession. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Court, the appellant filed appeal before the Special Tribunal under the Act. The Special Tribunal did not find any good reason to take a different view and affirmed the findings recorded by the Special Court. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of the Special Tribunal, filed writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench partly allowed the writ petition to the extent of setting aside the direction for payment of profits @ Rs. 500.00 per month from the year 1986 till the date of delivery of possession. However, the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in other respects, including delivery of possession. Hence, this appeal by the appellant to the extent he is aggrieved by the impugned judgment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of definition of "land grabbing" given u/s. 2(e) of the Act, it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to illegally occupy the land in question. Even though he was in possession of the land without authority of law or without any entitlement, that itself was not sufficient to hold that there has been land grabbing by him in the absence of any intention to occupy the land illegally. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gouni Satya Reddi V/s. Govt. of A.P.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.