M NETRANANDA Vs. B SAMBASIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are directed against the common order of the special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the special Court) dated 5-3-2001 made in LGA Nos.17 and 39 of 1999 dismissing the Appeals and confirming the order of the Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Special Tribunal) dated 20-11-1998 made in OP No.756 of 1993.

(2.) WP No. 1405 8 of 2001 is filed by the applicant in the OP whereas WP No. 11559 of 2001 is by the respondent, who is held to be the 'land grabber' by the Special Tribunal as well as the special Court in the light of the evidence placed on record. Both the Courts below, however, in lieu of delivery of possession of the application schedule land, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in exercise of the power conferred purported to be under sub-section (5) of Section (7-A) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act). According to the petitioner in WP No.14058 of 2001, that part of the order which directed payment of compensation in lieu of delivery of possession is one without jurisdiction and such order could not have been passed by the Courts below under the provisions of the Act. It is also his case that even assuming that the Courts below have power to award compensation in lieu of delivery of possession of the application schedule land, even then, the compensation now awarded is very meagre and it does not constitute correct market value of the application schedule land.

(3.) In WP No. 11559 of 2001 filed by the respondent-alleged land grabber, it is contended that the finding recorded by the Courts below that the petitioner is the 'land grabber' within the meaning of that term as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act is perverse and not based any substantive legal evidence. It is also contended that compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Courts below, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the evidence on record, is highly excessive and arbitrary.