ORDER
B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J
1.This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the Special Tribunal (District Judge) Warangal in entertaining the pet ition in LGC No.36 of 1989 filed under Section 7-A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provision and Scheme of the Act and for issuance of consequential direction not to proceed with the said case.
2. The respondents herein had filed the said Land Grabbing Case invoking sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act. Their case is that their ancestors M/s. late Balaji, Bandulal, Veeraiah, Gangoji and Raheem were the owners and possessors of Acs.9.00 of land bearing Survey No.436 (old) corresponding to new Survey No.206 situated at Nakkalagutta, Hanamakonda of Warangal district. It is their case that the said land was purchased by their ancestors by a registered sale deed dated 6-3-1966 from one Hameed Pasha for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and ever since the same, had been in possession of the said land. Apart from the above land, it is the case of respondents 1 to 7 and 24 and 25 that their ancestors namely Balaji and Raheem had purchased another piece of land of Acs.4.33 gts. in Survey No.437 (old) corresponding to new Survey No.207 situated at Hanumkonda of Warangal district, under the agreement of sale dated 16-8-1970 from same Hameed Pasha for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and had obtained possession of the said land and had been in possession pursuant thereto. It is also their case that out of the said land, Acs.3.00 is under illegal and unauthorised possession of the petitioners herein consequent to their grabbing the said land with full knowledge and information that the said land belongs to respondents. The respondents had filed declarations before the Special Officer under Urban Land Ceiling, Warangal as contemplated under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and an order has been passed on 18-2-1982 by the said authority and the same has been filed along with other documents including the sale deed as also Pahani patriks right from the year 1954 onwards.
3. We are not here to discuss the merits of the claim of the respondents. The matter is at the threshold and we are called upon to decide as to whether the said Tribunal under the Act possesses jurisdiction to entertain a case of land grabbing against the Government. According to the writ petitioners, who are the Governmental authorities, the Act is not at all applicable for invocation against the Government and the Act is intended and has been enacted only for the purpose of ousting the land grabbers on the Government land and that the Government can never be a land grabber and even assuming that a claim is made that the Government is in possession of the land belonging to a private person, no proceedings under the Act can be initiated against the Government and it is only the common law Court, which has got jurisdiction.
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners repeats the same contentions, while the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits contra saying that the Government is also amenable for being proceeded against, under the Act.
5. Let us have a look at the relevant provisions of the Act. 'Land Grabbing' is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act to mean every act of grabbing of any land belonging to 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 licence 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 andthe term 'to grab land' shall be construed accordingly. 'Land Grabber' is defined in Section 2(d) of the Act to mean 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.
6. From the above definitions, it is argued on behalf of the Government that the Act deals with the removal of encroachments on the land belonging to private persons and it can be directed only against a private person and not the Government as the word 'person' does not include the Government, but includes, at the most any legal person like firm, company, corporation, religious or charitable institution or endowment. Strength for such argument is drawn by the definition of 'person' in Section 2(g) of the Act which reads 'person' includes a group or body of persons, an association, or a religious or charitable institution or endowment, whether incorporated or not. By this, according to the learned Government Pleader, the Government is kept out of the definition of 'person' and that too consciously and the Legislature knowingly did not include the Government within the definition of 'person' and that being the intention of the Legislature, the definition of 'person' cannot be stretched so as to include the Government also.
7. With regard to the subject of land grabbing and the remedial measures, the Act has got overriding effect under Section 15, which reads :
'The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anythinginconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court of any other Tribunal or authority'.
In view of this non-obstante clause, with regard to the matters falling under the Act, no other Court or authority can entertain and try those cases. Even suo motu cognizance is provided for the Special Court under Section 8 of the Act. Section 7-A of the Act relates to powers of the Special Tribunals and sub-section (1) thereof, which is relevant, reads :
'Every Special Tribunal shall have power to try all cases not taken cognizance of by the Special Court relating to any alleged act of land grabbing, or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of the land grabbed whether before or after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1987 and brought before it and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit:
Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Tribunal, any case brought before it is prima facie frivolous, or vexatious it shall reject the same without any further enquiry;
Provided further that if in the opinion of the Special Tribunal any case brought before it is a fit case to be tried by the Special Court it may for reasons to be recorded by it transfer the case to the Special Court for its decision in the matter.'
8. In fact, the Act is a self-contained one providing all the civil and criminal powers to the Special Tribunals and the Special Court. If that be the scheme of the Act, which is a complete Code for dealing with the land grabbing including title theretoand as to whether the possession of the person on the immovable property is lawful or not, it cannot be comprehended that there is a dichotomy provided under the Act so as to exclude the Government being the defendant when there is an act of land grabbing on the part of Government through its Officers. In the instant case, the Officers are named, who are alleged to have encroached on the land. Days are gone when the Crown could not be thought of encroaching on the citizens' land and all the lands relating to eviction dealt only the remedies inter se the citizens and not providing any remedy against the State. With the advent of the Indian Constitution from January 26, 1950 the entire legal scenario has changed and the State cannot claim any immunity from the action against the encroachment. In fact, it was a fundamental right enshrined in Article 31 of Constitution of India that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and in view of the Constitution (Fourty Fourth) Amendment Act, 1978, brought into force from 1-4-1979, even though the said fundamental right is deleted from Part IV, but has been lifted with the same pharaseology and inserted as constitutional guarantee under Article 300A, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law and if this be the constitutional mandate, the State cannot claim immunity from legal action under the Act when the allegation is that without authority of law the land of the respondents has been occupied. It may be that the State denies the allegation of encroachment and claim that it is the lawful owner and possessor, but it cannot say that it can refuse to answer the allegation made that it is an encroacher. As such, no privilege can be claimed by the State or its Officer from being sued under the Act. Further, in the context of the scheme of the Act mentioned above as also the constitutional provision under Article 300A of Indian Constitution, the definition of 'person' in Section 2(g) ofthe Act should include the Government also, otherwise, it will be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution as also equality clause enshrined in Article 14 thereof. That apart, even the definition of the word 'person' in Section 2(g) of the Act is not exhaustive. It is now a settled law that if the definition uses the word 'includes' then that always connotes that the same should be given extensive meaning and not restrictive. The underlying object of the Act should also be taken into consideration as to whether the Government also can be construed as a person. As the definition of the word 'person' in Section 2(g) of the Act is an inclusive definition and not exhaustive of the persons named therein, be it natural or artificial and in view of the constitutional provision contained in Article 300A and Scheme of the Act, we are of the considered view that the word 'person' in Section 2(g) of the Act includes Government also meaning its Officers grabbing the land of any authority or private person. Our view is fortified by the decisions rendered in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, : (1960)ILLJ251SC , in which it was held that the words used in an inclusive definition denote extension and cannot be treated as restricted in any sense, in IT Commissioner, A.P. v. Taj Mahal Hotel, : [1971]82ITR44(SC) , where in the context of the user of the word 'includes' in Section 10(5) of the Income-Tax Act came to be considered, the Supreme Court held that the word 'includes' is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute and that when it is so used, these words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include, and in Reynolds v. John, 1956 (1) All.ER 306, where dealing with the expression 'loud speaker' which is an inclusive definition like the present definitionof person in Section 2(g) of the Act, it was held that the word 'includes' connotes enlarging rather than restricting the meaning of the word and which proposition is inconsonance with the legal principles stated by the two Supreme Court judgments mentioned supra.
9. In view of what is stated supra, we hold that the word 'person' in Section 2(g) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 includes the Government and its Officers also. The writ petition is thus dismissed, but without order as to costs. Now the Special Tribunal (District Judge), Warangal shall proceed with LGC No.36 of 1989 by conducting trial and disposing of the same in accordance with the Act, as expeditious as possible, but not later than 30-4-2001 AD.