Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal
      • AD. RAMPRAKASH RAJAGOPAL
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • James Raja
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • Legal words
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Quash: Apex Court quashed the G.O of TamilNadu constituting special courts for Land Grabbing cases and advice to enact appropriate legislation
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Quick Recall> General> Quash: Apex Court quashed the G.O of TamilNadu constituting special courts for Land Grabbing cases and advice to enact appropriate legislation

Quash: Apex Court quashed the G.O of TamilNadu constituting special courts for Land Grabbing cases and advice to enact appropriate legislation

Head note: Quash: Apex Court quashed the G.O of TamilNadu constituting special courts for Land Grabbing cases and advice to enact appropriate legislation
Ramprakash Rajagopal May 14, 2023 7 Min Read
Share
Points
Constitution of Special Courts for Land Grabbing casesNo specific legislation for Land Grabbing cases in Tamil NaduApex Court upheld the order quashing the constitution of special courts G.OParty
Constitution of Special Courts for Land Grabbing cases

5. By the aforesaid G.O [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] 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:

“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.

No specific legislation for Land Grabbing cases in Tamil Nadu

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-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.

Apex Court upheld the order quashing the constitution of special courts G.O

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 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.

Party

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS vs. R. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1580-1608 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2022 – MAY 04, 2023.

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/5569/5569_2015_4_1501_44215_Judgement_04-May-2023.pdf

Government of T.N vs. R.Thamaraiselvam etc…

Previous position

Land grabbing: Transfer of Land Grabbing cases ordered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras from special courts to jurisdictional court is quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 

Subject Study

  • Sanction: How sanctioning authority shall examine the case presented before him?
  • Reasoned order is must to decide the Lis
  • Act 14 of 1982: Sexual offender: Unexplained delay of 21 days in considering the representation is prejudice to the detenu (with direction to the state government on giving counselling to the arrested teenagers)
  • Anticipatory Bail in different case: An accused who is in custody in different case has to obtain Anticipatory Bail before he is formally arrested by the police under P.T warrant in another case
  • Section 91 Cr.P.C: Accused has no right to summon call at the stage of charge framing
  • Section 319 – Power of summoning – Explained
  • Punishing a person even without proper identity is against Article-21
  • Section 145 Evidence Act: No court should allow a witness to be contradicted by reference to the previous statement in writing or reduced to writing unless the the procedure set out in section145 of the Evidence Act
TAGGED:land grabbing casesquashing g.ospecial courts for land grabbingsupreme court quashed land grabbing g.o
Previous Article Taking cognizance: A Basic Understanding
Next Article Tamilnadu cash-for-job scam case: Criminal trial is not a friendly match between the complainant and the accused
6 Comments
  • Pingback: Understanding Section 153A IPC Offence: Explained - section1.in
  • Pingback: Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Though offences POCSO and Murder have been proved accused acquitted based on procedural illegalities - section1.in
  • Pingback: Understanding the Shoma Kanti Sen Case: - section1.in
  • Pingback: The Principles on Cheating Explained: under the Indian Penal Code - section1.in
  • Pingback: PC Act: FIR quash: High Court would not have entered into the observation that there is no direct evidence for the demand for bribe - section1.in
  • Pingback: Discarding the Final Report: Is it Reliable at Bail Application Stage? - section1.in

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

filthy language

Employer-Employee: Complaint (employee) does not indicate that the appellants (employers) used filthy language

Ramprakash Rajagopal January 28, 2025
Dowry Death: Since witnesses stating the dowry demand only before the court (significant omission) would not establish section 304B IPC
Acquittal: Trap case: Witness entered the room only after the complainant’s signal, meaning they did not witness the actual transaction also the amount was scattered in the floor next to the accused
Section 437(1) & (2) Cr.P.C is a stage prior to trial whereas section 437 (6) Cr.P.C is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences
Constitutional courts are fully empowered to direct for CBI investigation but not on the basis of “ifs” and “buts”

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             © Paperpage Internet Services.                       All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?