Supreme Court of India
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERSversusR. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 2023 INSC 490
- Decided
- 4 May 2023
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Holding
In the absence of specific legislation defining land‑grabbing, the Government Orders are ultra vires and may be set aside; the High Court’s decision to quash them is affirmed.
Summary
The Tamil Nadu Government issued two Government Orders (G.O. No. 423 dated 28‑07‑2011 and G.O. No. 451 dated 11‑08‑2011) to set up 36 Anti‑Land‑Grabbing Special Cells and to transfer land‑grabbing cases to specially constituted courts. The orders did not define “land grabbing” or lay down any criteria for selecting cases, thereby giving police unfettered discretion. The Madras High Court quashed both GOs, holding that the lack of definition rendered the orders arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The State appealed the High Court’s judgment (Civil Appeals 1580‑1608 of 2022) and also challenged a related criminal order transferring a case from a special land‑grabbing court to a regular magistrate. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view, observing that in the absence of a specific statute defining land‑grabbing offences, the GOs are ultra vires and can be set aside, and dismissed both the civil and criminal appeals. The Court suggested that the State may enact appropriate legislation defining “land grabbing” and “land grabber”.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Orders constituting Anti‑Land‑Grabbing Special Cells and transferring cases to special courts are valid in the absence of a definition of “land grabbing”.
- Whether the orders violate Article 14 of the Constitution by granting arbitrary police discretion.
- Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the orders.
- Whether the criminal order transferring a case from a special land‑grabbing court to a regular magistrate should stand.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 420, s. 447, s. 506
Subjects
land grabbinganti‑land‑grabbing cellsadministrative lawArticle 14definition of offencespecial courtspolice discretionlegislative vacuum
Judgment
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 851 851
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS A
v.
R. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1580-1608 of 2022)
MAY 04, 2023 B
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Grabbing: Land grabbing matters – By a Government
Order, the State of Tamil Nadu, constituted Anti Land Grabbing
Special Cells in Tamil Nadu for investigating the cases pertaining
C
to land grabbing, however, without defining land grabbing cases –
By the other Government Order the land grabbing cases were ordered
to be transferred to the Special Courts constituted to exclusively
deal with the land grabbing cases – Writ Petitions against the said
G.Os – High Court set aside the G.Os on the ground that the same
does not lay down any yardstick or guideline to pick and choose D
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 thereby, there is
E
possibility of misuse and abuse of the power – Other GO also
quashed – On appeal, held: There is no specific enactment and/or
Act to deal with 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 would F
be investigated by the Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell – Thus, the
High Court rightly set aside the GO with the liberty to the State
Government to bring appropriate legislation – Impugned judgment
and order of the High Court does not call for interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1580- G
1608 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10/02/2015 in WP Nos.26883,
27216 of 2011, 24925 of 2013, 27502 of 2011, 10198, 28060 of 2012,
28413 of 2014, WPMD No.19726 of 2014, WP Nos.25877, 26773 of
2011, 10775 of 2012, 20481 of 2014, 18872, 21126, 25876, 27215, 27503, H
851
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
A 27504, 27505 of 2011, 8227, 8261, 10185, 25834, 26956, 26957 of 2012,
4476, 31673 of 2014, 26884 of 2011, 26885 of 2015 of the High Court of
Madras.
With
Criminal Appeal No.275 of 2022.
B
R. Shunmugasundaram, Advocate General, V. Krishnamurthy,
AAG, Dr. Ram Sankar, K. Elangovan, L. Sivakumar, Sharu Kumar,
Suvethan, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Ms. Shaarumathi, Yusuf, B. Balaji, Dr.
Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar
Mahara, S. Thananjayan, Ms. Aaina Verma, Ms. Jaswanthi Anbuselvam,
C Ms. Promila, K.S. Mahadevan, Rangarajan, Ms. Swati Bansal, Rajesh
Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, T. R. B. Sivakumar, B. Sridhar, Venkateswara
Rao Anumolu, S. Gowthaman, R. Nedumaran, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms.
N.P. Haibila, Ms. G. Indira, Anish R. Shah, M.P. Srivignesh, Mithunkumaar
N., Jose Abraham, Advs. for the appearing parties.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
E writ petitions, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions
and has quashed G.O. (Ms.) No. 423, Home (Police XI) 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.
F
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
G 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
H in the State. Consequent upon the said G.O., another G.O. bearing No.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU v. R. THAMARAISELVAM 853
ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
451 dated 11.08.2011 came to be issued and the Land Grabbing Cases A
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 the subject matter of the writ petitions before the
High Court.
2.1 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court B
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 C
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 D
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.
E
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 F
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 G
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 H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
A 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.
3.4 It is contended that the High Court ought to have appreciated
that the expression “Land Grabbing” does not need any specific definition
B 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
C 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
D 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.
E
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
F 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 with one cell
G 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
H
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU v. R. THAMARAISELVAM 855
ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
Annexure-I of this order. The Government also accord financial A
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
B
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 C
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
D
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 E
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 F
28.07.2011 and Additional Sanction Ledger No: 337 (Three hundred
and thirty seven).
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
RAMESHRAM MISHRA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” G
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 H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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)
C 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
D 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
E (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
F 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.
G 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
H
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU v. R. THAMARAISELVAM 857
ETC. ETC. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
can be said to be land grabbing cases, it gives unfettered and unguided A
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
B
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. C
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
D
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 Government is so conscious and/or interested
in taking action against land grabbers, it will be open for the State E
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. F
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. G
Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land grabbing"Sign in to search