Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Accountant General'S Office Co-Op. ... vs The Special Court Under A.P. Land ... on 6 June, 2002
ORDER
1. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act), has been rejected by the impugned order dated 3.4.1990 in L.G.C. No. 52/90.
2. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Act reads as follows:
"The Special Court shall, for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case, consider the location, or extent or value of the land alleged to have been grabbed or of the substantial nature of the evil involved or in the interest of justice required or any other relevant matter;
Provided that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any such case without hearing the petitioner."
3. It is true that under sub-section (1-A) of Section 8, the Special Court has discretion not to take cognizance of the application. But the discretion vested in the Special Court is circumscribed by the provision of sub-section (1-A) itself.
4. It is well settled that the discretion vested in the statutory authority should be brought to bear on facts and circumstances of each case. The impugned order passed by the Special Court reads as follows:
"Heard Sri M.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the applicants. The extent of the land in dispute is small and the nature of the evil involved is insignificant. Apart from this the facts as they stand, the dispute is purely of civil nature. Hence the application is rejected."
5. As could be seen from the order, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the Special Court to the pleadings of the petitioners and the documents produced by the petitioners before it. Further, the reasons stated in the order are incomprehensive. The phrase, "the evil involved is insignificant" occurring in the impugned order does not make any sense much less it constitutes any relevant aid in the decision-making. The impugned order is bad in law for non-application of mind as well as for want of reasons in support of the decision. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the order of the Special Court impugned in the writ petition.The application of the petitioners filed under section 8 of the Act, shall stand remitted to the Special Court with a direction to consider the application of the petitioners afresh as regards taking cognizance of the same strictly in accordance with law and after hearing the petitioners as required under the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Act.
6. All the contentions raised in this writ petition regarding merits of the case are left open to be agitated at appropriate stage. No costs.