Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1580-1608 OF 2022
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS
…APPELLANTS
VERSUS
R. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned common judgment and order dated 10.02.2015
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ
Petition No. 18872/2011 and other allied writ petitions, by
which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions
Signature Not Verified
and has quashed G.O. (Ms.) No. 423, Home (Police XI)
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.05.04
16:38:35 IST
Reason:
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 1 of 10
Department dated 28.07.2011 (hereinafter referred to as
‘G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011’) as well as G.O.(Ms.) No.
451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011
(hereinafter referred to as ‘G.O. No. 451 dated
11.08.2011’), the State of Tamil Nadu has preferred the
present appeals.
1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 275/2022 has been preferred
challenging the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P.
No. 23641/2019, by which the High Court has directed to
transfer the case being C.C. No. 2 of 2012 from the Court
of Special Judicial Magistrate, Land Grabbing, Erode to
the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode.
2. Vide G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011, the State of
Tamil Nadu sanctioned formation of 36 Anti Land Grabbing
Special Cells in Tamil Nadu with one cell each at the State
Police Headquarters, 7 Commissionerates and 28 Districts
to deal with the Land Grabbing Cases in the State.
Consequent upon the said G.O., another G.O. bearing No.
451 dated 11.08.2011 came to be issued and the Land
Grabbing Cases were ordered to be transferred to the
Special Courts which were constituted exclusively to deal
with the Land Grabbing Cases. The aforesaid G.Os were
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 2 of 10
the subject matter of the writ petitions before the High
Court.
2.1 By the impugned common judgment and order, the
High Court has set aside G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011
by holding that the same does not lay down any yardstick
or guideline to pick and choose and select particular cases
against particular persons said to have indulged in land
grabbing and in the absence of definition of the
word/phrase “Land Grabbing”, discretion is vested with the
police personnel attached to the Anti-Land Grabbing Cell
to pick and choose against whom they want to register
FIR and proceed with the investigation and on account of
the same, the possibility of abuse and misuse of power
cannot be ruled out. While quashing and setting aside
G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011, the High Court has also
observed that the State Government is at liberty to bring
any appropriate legislation along the lines of the A.P. Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 or better legislations de
hors the result of the writ petitions. Consequently, the
High Court has also quashed and set aside G.O. No. 451
dated 11.08.2011. The impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of
present Civil Appeals.
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 3 of 10
3. Shri R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate
General has appeared on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu.
3.1 Learned Advocate General appearing for the State
of Tamil Nadu has vehemently submitted that the High
Court has erred in quashing the Government Orders by
holding that in the absence of definition pertaining to
offence of “Land Grabbing”, the Special Cells constituted
for investigating the cases pertaining to land grabbing are
not competent to investigate those kind of cases.
3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has erred
in quashing and setting aside G.O. No. 423 dated
28.07.2011 on the possibility of abuse and misuse of
power by the police officers. That the possibility of abuse
or misuse of a provision by the authority cannot be a
ground for a legislation to be held to be arbitrary or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.3 It is next submitted that the High Court has failed to
appreciate that the Special Cells were constituted to deal
with the specific problem in the State of Tamil Nadu where
large number of complaints are being filed alleging that
goondas by using their muscle power have forcibly
occupied lands.
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 4 of 10
3.4 It is contended that the High Court ought to have
appreciated that the expression “Land Grabbing” does not
need any specific definition as the said expression relates
to Sections 447, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. We have heard learned Advocate General on behalf
of the State of Tamil Nadu at length. We have gone
through the common impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court. We have also gone through
G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011, which reads as under:
“HOME (POL-XI) DEPARTMENT
G.O.(Ms) No. 423 Dated: 28.07.2011
From the Director General of Police, Chennai – 4,letter
Re: No.:176388/RA I (2)/2011, dated : 13.07.2011
O R D E R:-
In the Press Release dated: 10.07.2011, the Hon’ble Chief
Minister has made an announcement that Anti Land Grabbing
Special Cells will be formed in Tamilnadu to deal with the Land
grabbing cases in the State.
2. Based on the announcement made by Hon’ble Chief
Minister, the Director General of Police has sent necessary
proposals to the Government for the formation of 39 Anti Land
Grabbing Special Cells with 410 Police personnel to deal with
the land grabbing cases in the State with the financial
commitment for Rs.27,71,11,658/-.
3. The Government after careful examination have decided to
accept the proposal of the Director General of Police with
certain modifications and accord administrative sanction for the
formation of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamilnadu
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 5 of 10
with one cell each at the State Police Headquarters, 7
Commissionerates and 28 Districts except Karuru,
Tiruvannamalai and Nagappattinam Districts for a period of one
year on temporary basis. In case of those three Districts, the
District Crime Branch will handle the investigation of land grab
complaints. The Staff pattern of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special
Cells in Tamilnadu is indicated in the Annexure-I of this order.
The Government also accord financial sanction for a sum of Rs.
20,02,08,842/- (Rupees Twenty Crores, two lakhs, eight
thousand, eight hundred and forty two only) for the formation of
36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells. The recurring and non-
recurring expenditure are Rs. 12,51,01,380/- and Rs.
7,51,07,462/- respectively, as indicated in the Annexure-II to IV
of this order.
4. The expenditure sanctioned in para 3 above shall be
debited under the relevant following head of account:
“2055-00-Police – under respective sub-heads”
5. The expenditure is an item of “New Service”. The approval
of the Legislature will be obtained in due course. Pending
approval of the Legislature, the expenditure will be initially met
by an advance from the contingency fund, orders regarding
which will be issued by the Finance (BG.I) Department
separately. The Director General of Police, Chennai is
requested to apply for an advance for the required amount from
the contingency fund in the current year to the Government in
Finance (BG.I) Department in the prescribed proforma together
with a copy of this order. He is also directed to send a draft
explanatory note, indicating the total cost of the scheme, the
cost that would be required for the implementation during the
financial year etc. to Government Finance (BG-I) Department
for inclusion of the expenditure in the supplementary estimates,
for bringing it to the notice of the legislature in due course.
6. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance
Department vide its U.O. No. 39471/CMPC/2011-1, dated
28.07.2011 and Additional Sanction Ledger No: 337 (Three
hundred and thirty seven).
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
RAMESHRAM MISHRA
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 6 of 10
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT”
5. By the aforesaid G.O., the Government of Tamil
Nadu has constituted/formed 36 Anti Land Grabbing
Special Cells to deal with the land grabbing cases.
However, it is required to be noted that the type of cases
can be said to be land grabbing cases has not been
defined and/or mentioned in the said G.O. Therefore, it
will be at the discretion of the concerned police officers to
treat and/or consider any case relating to land as land
grabbing case, which shall be investigated by the Anti-
Land Grabbing Special Cell, rather than by the police
officers under the Cr.P.C. It is required to be noted that as
such there is no Anti-Land Grabbing Act in the State of
Tamil Nadu like A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982
or Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 or
similar Land Grabbing Prohibition Acts in other States. It
is required to be noted that in the other Land Grabbing
Prohibition Acts applicable in the States of Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat and Assam, “Land Grabbing”
is specifically defined. Even the term “Land Grabber” is
defined. For example, in Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 1982, “Land Grabber” and “Land
Grabbing” are defined as under:
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 7 of 10
“land grabber” means a person or a group of persons who
commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives
financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands
or for construction of unauthorised structures thereon, or who
collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands
rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation,
or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and
also includes the successors in interest.
“land grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of any land
(whether belonging to the government, a local authority, a
religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a
wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of
persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to
illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create
illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements or any other
illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct
unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such
lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for
construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorised structures;
and the term “to grab and” shall be construed accordingly.
6. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, it is
an admitted position that there is no specific enactment
and/or Act to deal with land grabbing cases, like Andhra
Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the
Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cells have been formed by
G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 to exclusively deal with
the land grabbing cases. In absence of any guidelines
and/or definition as to which cases can be said to be land
grabbing cases, it gives unfettered and unguided and
arbitrary powers to the police to treat any land case as a
land grabbing case which will be investigated by the Anti-
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 8 of 10
Land Grabbing Special Cell. Even a dispute between two
private persons which may be under the Specific Relief
Act and/or Transfer of Property Act may be considered as
a land grabbing case like in Criminal Appeal No. 275/2022
in which a Civil Suit was pending for specific performance
which was dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter
the defendant filed a complaint/FIR for the offences under
the IPC. Therefore, as such, it is rightly held and
observed by the High Court that in absence of any
specific guideline and/or definition of “land grabbing
cases,” such powers can be abused or misused and such
powers can be said to be exercised arbitrarily. Therefore,
the High Court has rightly set aside G.O. No. 423 dated
28.07.2011 with liberty to the State Government to bring
any appropriate legislation on the lines of A.P. Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 or better legislations after
defining and/or providing the guidelines as to which
offences can be said to be “land grabbing cases”.
Therefore, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed
by the High Court does/do not call for any interference by
this Court.
7. Under the circumstances, Civil Appeals preferred by
the State deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed. However, we reiterate that if the State
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 9 of 10
Government is so conscious and/or interested in taking
action against land grabbers, it will be open for the State
Government to bring an appropriate legislation with the
clear definition of “land grabber” and “land grabbing” or
better legislations with a clear definition of “land grabbing”,
”land grabber” and “land grabbing cases” and the present
order shall not come in their way to enact such legislation
and/or better legislations.
8. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 275/2022
which was with respect to private persons by which the
Criminal case between the parties is ordered to be
transferred to the regular Court from the Special Court
(Land Grabbing) deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
……………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………J.
MAY 04, 2023. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
CA Nos.1580-1608/2022 Etc. Page 10 of 10