The Supreme Court bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna has strongly urged the Tamil Nadu Government to enact a comprehensive Land Grabbing Prohibition Act.
The Apex Court emphasised the need for a specific law that addresses the growing issue of land grabbing within the state. The Apex Court declared that the Madras High Court rightly observed that such undefined and unchecked powers could be prone to abuse and misuse, leading to arbitrary exercise of authority.
Brief Facts:
The State of Tamil Nadu authorised the establishment of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells. These cells were set up at various locations to handle land-grabbing cases in the state. Subsequently, another government order was issued, directing the transfer of land-grabbing cases to Special Courts exclusively designated for such cases. The writ petitions were filed before the High Court to challenge these government orders.
In the contested judgement, the High Court overturned the government order, stating that it lacked clear criteria or guidelines for selecting and prosecuting specific cases of land grabbing. The absence of a definition for "Land Grabbing" provided discretion to the police personnel in the Anti-Land Grabbing Cell to choose which cases to register FIRs against and investigate. The set of Civil Appeals revolved around the challenged common judgement and order issued by the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was contended that the High Court's decision to quash the government order on the grounds of potential abuse and misuse of power by the police officers is erroneous. Further, that the possibility of such abuse or misuse should not be used as a basis to declare legislation as arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Additionally, it was argued that the High Court failed to recognise the purpose behind the formation of the Special Cells, which was to address the specific problem in Tamil Nadu where numerous complaints were being filed alleging forceful occupation of lands by individuals with criminal backgrounds. Moreover, the High Court should have acknowledged that the term "Land Grabbing" does not require a specific definition, as it pertains to Sections 447, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the Government of Tamil Nadu established 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells to handle land-grabbing cases. However, the government order did not provide a specific definition or criteria for what constitutes a land-grabbing case. As a result, the decision to treat a land-related case as a land-grabbing case and assign it to the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell is left to the discretion of the police officers, rather than following the procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Apex Court further noted that, unlike other states such as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, and Assam, Tamil Nadu does not have a dedicated Anti-Land Grabbing Act that defines the terms "Land Grabbing" and "Land Grabber." This lack of clarity and guidelines gives the police unrestricted and arbitrary powers to classify any land-related dispute as a land-grabbing case, even if it falls under the purview of the Specific Relief Act or the Transfer of Property Act.
The Top Court declared that the High Court rightly observed that such undefined and unchecked powers could be prone to abuse and misuse, leading to arbitrary exercise of authority. Consequently, the High Court correctly invalidated the government order and suggested that the State Government should introduce appropriate legislation, similar to the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, or better laws that define and provide guidelines for identifying "land grabbing cases."
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned order and judgement of the High Court of Madras.
Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu & Others v R. Thamaraiselvam Etc.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1580 to 1608 of 2022
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 438 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. B. Balaji, Dr. Ram Sankar, Mr. K. Elangovan, Mr. L.Sivakumar, Mr. Sharuk Kumar, Mr. T.N. Nanda Kumar, Mr. G. Jai Singh, Mr. Anand Kumar V., Mr. Aditya Kishor Tyagi, Ms. R.V. Shaarumathi, Mr. Yusuf
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. R. Viduthalai, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mr. Gandeepan, Mr. Harnaman Singh, Mr. Rahul, Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Ms. G. Indira, Mr. Anish R. Shah, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, Mr. B. Sridhar, Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Mr. S. Thananjayan, Ms. Promila, Ms. Jaswanti,Mr. Sandeep Rana, Mr. S. Gowthaman, Mr. R. Nedumaran, Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, A.A.G. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Mr. Jose Abraham, Mr. K.S. Mahadevan, Ms. Swati Bansal, Mr. Rangarajan R., Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
