Case details

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 1 October 2019
Bench: R.F. Nariman
Citations: 2019 INSC 1108[2019] 13 S.C.R. 651
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 651 (search it on the Supreme Court's e-SCR portal)

Supreme Court of India

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS. on 1 October 2019

Cites 0, Cited by 0

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.

(Miscellaneous Application Nos. 910-924 of 2019)

(Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 3793-3807 of 2018)

(Civil Appeal Nos. 5442-5456 of 2015)

OCTOBER 01, 2019

[R. F. NARIMAN, K. M. JOSEPH ANDV. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – The urbanland ceiling proceedings handed certain land to the newspaperpublication – The said proceedings were challenged – Single Judgeof the High Court ordered a survey and held that if after survey,it is clear that the extent of 8000 sq. mtrs. allotted to the publicationwas in fact survey no.129/45/D, the order of allotment would beset aside – Supreme Court upheld the order of the Single Judgeand ordered demarcation of survey no. 129/45/D – Initial surveycarried out stated no such land in the said survey number existed– Pursuant thereto, the State requested review of the Supreme Courtjudgment – Review petition was filed by the State, however, samewas disposed of with the direction that the report filed was not inconsonance with the order passed by the Supreme Court –Thereafter, a compliance report was filed with a map appendedthereto – Held: The documents involved in the original civil appealsdisclose the fact that the said property was in rectangular shape – On perusal of the map appended to the Compliance Report, thedescription of the property would accord with TS No. 19/P whichwas marked by the letters ‘PQRS’ (rectangular shape) and the samewas allotted to the newspaper publication and plot no.129/45/Dwas marked as ‘ABC’ (triangular shape) –The land marked as‘ABC’ was heavy built up and was of no use to the appellants –The first survey report wrongly stated that land does not exist –

651

AHowever, the Second report located the land, but not where itactually existed – Given the extraordinary facts of the case, powersu/Art. 142 exercised – The second report submitted was rejectedand it was declared that the land which is at survey no. 19/P andwhich is marked in the map of the second survey report as ‘PQRS’is the land that is actually survey no. 129/45/D – This being theBcase, the allotment made set aside and newspaper publicationdirected to deliver land to the appellants.

Disposing of the applications, the Court HELD: 1. Ordinarily, this Court would have relegated theCoriginal appellants to challenge the Report that has now beenfiled in compliance with Review Order. However, there is areluctance on the part of the authorities to part with this landas it is extremely valuable. This Court has found how, in theearlier round of proceedings, they have taken various conflictingDstands as to whether the land was originally evacuee propertyor otherwise. This Court also finds that in the first Survey thatwas done pursuant to the Single Judge’s judgment, there was agreat reluctance to part with this land which is why the aforesaidSurvey Report wrongly stated that such land does not at all exist.It is only at the repeated insistence of this Court that finally aESurvey Report has now located the land, but not where it actuallyexists. The reason is not far to seek - because if, as per the mapappended to the present Report, the land marked A, B, C wasto be handed over to the appellants, it would be land which isheavily built up and of no use, whatsoever, to the appellants.F[Para 12] [656-E-H]

2. Therefore, given the extraordinary facts of this case,this Court does not wish to drive the appellants to one moreround of proceedings and, therefore, in exercise of powers underArticle 142 of the Constitution of India, the second Report isGrejected and it is declared that the land which is at Survey No.19/P and which is marked in the map of the second SurveyReport as ‘PQRS’ is the land that is actually Survey No. 129/45/D. This being the case, it is clear that the allotment made tonewspaper publication must be set aside, and the land beHdelivered to the appellants.[Para 13] [657-A-B]

INHERENT/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Miscellaneous Application Nos. 910-924 of 2019 in Review Petition (c)Nos. 3793-3807 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5442-5456 of 2015.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2019 passed by thisHon’ble Court in Review Petition (C) Nos.3793-3807 of 2018

Mahesh Jethmalani, P. Raghuram, K. Radhakrishnan,Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Advs., Ms. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Rohit RaoN., Devahuti Tamuli, Ms. Sania Perween, P. Venkat Reddy, PrashantTyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Ms. D. Geeta, Ms. CH. Ramola Priya,Ms. V. S. Lakshmi, A. V. Balan, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates,Ms. Bina Madhavan, Waghaley, Satya Adiraju, M/s. Lawyer S Knit &Co., Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. F. NARIMAN, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. The matter before us has had a chequered history and hascareered through the Courts resulting ultimately in Government filing areview petition against our judgment dated 16.08.2017, which reviewwas disposed of by judgment dated 27.02.2019 seeking to locate whereexactly Survey No. 129/45/D, Jubilee Hills, Sheikpet, Hyderabad,happens to be.

2. The writ petitions were originally filed challenging theproceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, anda proceeding by which certain land was handed over to the AndhraPrabha Publications(newspaper publication). These proceedingsculminated in the judgment of a learned Single Judge, who ultimatelystated that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings have abated, and thatit would be necessary to get a Survey conducted by the competentauthority in order to determine whether the allotment of land to theAndhra Prabha publications would be set aside. It was held by thelearned Single Judge that if, after survey, it is clear that the extent of8,000 square meters that was alloted to the Andhra Prabha publicationswas in fact Survey No. 129/45/D, the order allotting the aforesaid landto Andhra Prabha publications would have to be set aside. It was furtherordered that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the said survey result,they shall be free to file appropriate remedies available to them in law.

A3. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, AndraPradesh, by a judgment dated 16.03.2011, set aside the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge. The order of the Division bench was, in turn,set aside by this Court on 16.08.2017, by which judgment it was statedthat the Division Bench erred in mixing up two sets of properties, as aresult of which, after setting aside the order of the Division Bench, theBdirection contained in the order of the learned Single Judge wasrestored. Proceedings then arose in which our order dated 10.05.2018reflects that Survey no. 129/45/D had to be demarcated. Despite anorder of this Court dated 21.03.2018, this had not taken place, as a resultof which the authorities were directed to submit on affidavit a copy ofCthe demarcated area on a plan made out for that purpose.

4. The initial Survey that was then carried out stated that no suchland as is contained in the aforesaid Survey number exists. When facedwith this, the then learned senior counsel appearing for the Staterequested that the judgment itself be reviewed. A review petition wasDthen filed which was disposed of by a detailed judgment by this Courtdated 27.02.2019 in which this Court referred to various documents andthen stated:

“Given the High Court judgment and the aforesaid documents, itis obviously not open to the Government to state that no suchEplot, that is Survey No. 129/45/D or 129/D-45, exists in JubileeHills, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.

This being the case, we reject the Committee Report that hassince been filed dated 02.07.2018 and set it aside as this Reportis not in consonance with the directions of the learned SingleFJudge which has been upheld by us.

We, therefore, direct the Government to demarcate the aforesaidplot being land on the ground as it exists today. This will be donestrictly in accordance with the Single Judge’s directions by theCollector within a period of eight weeks from today.

GThe Review Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

List after eight weeks for compliance.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a Compliance Report has beengiven to this Court with a map appended thereto. Ultimately, the saidHland was located by the aforesaid Report on the said map as follows:

“Findings: - It is observed that

1. A portion of land now demarcated in Plot No. 129/45/D toan extent of Ac.O-38½ gts where an NOC was issued,corresponding to T.S. No. 20, Block-K, Ward No. 12 ofShaikpet Village and the remaining portion of land as percompromise deed in S.A. No. 354/2 of 1954-55 admeasuringBAc. 2-22½ gts is on northern side of the NOC issued landforming part of 129/45/D corresponds to TS.No. 19P, 18P,17/2p, Block-K, Ward-12.

2. The Land allotted to Andhra Prabha is located in TS.No.19/p, Block-K, Ward No. 12 of Shaikpet village is not fallingin the land demarcated by the Committee.

3. Accordingly, plot No. 129/45/D a map is prepared showingthe location of Plot No. 129/45/D (triangle ABC) and landallotted to Andhra Prabha (Rectangle PQRS).

6. Objections were then filed to the aforesaid Report by theoriginal petitioners in the civil appeals, to which replies have been filedby the State of Telangana and by Andhra Prabha Publications.

7. Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, it is importantto advert, first and foremost, to some of the documents that wereinvolved in the original civil appeals before us. A sale deed dated16.07.1962, which is of pivotal importance in the facts of this case, hadmade it clear that the property was in rectangular shape and wasbounded, among other things, by a public proposed road on the northand vacant Government land on the south and the west. If the mapappended to the Compliance Report is to be seen, the description ofthis property would accord with TS No. 19/P which is marked by theletters ‘PQRS’ and which has been alloted to Andhra Prabhapublications.

8. In addition, if the Urban Land Ceiling Authority’s order of27.06.2000, declaring part of this land surplus, is also to be seen, theaforesaid order makes it clear that plot No. 129/45/D is contained inTS No. 19/2 and is described as Surplus Vacant Land (it is not disputedthat the land which falls under TS No. 17/2 and which admeasures 2acres 22½ gunthas is heavily built up with buildings having beenconstructed in the 1980s). Also, the said Urban Land Ceiling orderhas specifically held that the land on which plot No. 129/45/D stooddid not involve any Government land, it being privately owned.

A9. However, Shri K. Radhakrishanan, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the Government, read to us in extenso the replyaffidavit filed on behalf of the State of Telangana dated 03.09.2019 inwhich, after going into the history of the Town Planning Survey of thisarea, it is specifically stated that the land allotted to Andhra PrabhaBpublications is classified as a Government land which is vacant anddifferent from the land in Survey No. 129/45/D. We have seen fromthe description of this land in the sale deed of 1962 as well as in thecompetent authority’s order dated 27.06.2000 that this would be whollyincorrect inasmuch as this land is clearly not a Government land.

C10. It was also brought to our notice by Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani,learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Andhra Prabhapublications, that averments were made by an affidavit of 2006 by theappellants in the original case stating that Survey No.129/45/D wasdistinct from Survey No. 403 and that being so distinct, they should notbe allowed to turn around and argue to the contrary. He also arguedDthat the aforesaid land really could not be stated to be in existence, aswas mentioned in the first Survey Report.

11. We are afraid that neither of these contentions is open tothe learned counsel in view of our judgment dated 27.02.2019 disposingof the review petition before us.E

12. Ordinarily, we would have relegated the original appellantsbefore us to challenge the Report that has now been filed in compliancewith our Review Order. However, we find a reluctance on the part ofthe authorities to part with this land as it is extremely valuable. Wehave found how, in the earlier round of proceedings, they have takenFvarious conflicting stands as to whether the land was originally evacueeproperty or otherwise. We also find that in the first Survey that wasdone pursuant to the learned Single Judge’s judgment, there was a greatreluctance to part with this land which is why the aforesaid SurveyReport wrongly stated that such land does not at all exist. It is only atGthe repeated insistence of this Court that finally a Survey Report hasnow located the land, but not where it actually exists. The reason isnot far to seek - because if, as per the map appended to the presentReport, the land marked A, B, C was to be handed over to the appellants,it would be land which is heavily built up and of no use, whatsoever, toHthe appellants.

13. We are therefore of the view that, given the extraordinaryfacts of this case, we do not wish to drive the appellants to one moreround of proceedings and, therefore, in exercise of our powers underArticle 142 of the Constitution of India, reject the second Report thathas been given to us and declare that the land which is at Survey No.19/P and which is marked in the map of the second Survey Report as‘PQRS’ is the land that is actually Survey No. 129/45/D. This beingthe case, it is clear that the allotment made to Andhra Prabhapublications must be set aside, and the land be delivered by AndraPrabha Publications to the appellants within a period of eight weeksfrom today.

14. The miscellaneous application is accordingly disposed of.

15. All amounts that have been paid by Andhra Prabhapublications to the Government shall be refunded by the Governmentto Andhra Prabha publications within a period of twelve weeks fromtoday, with Simple Interest at 6 per cent per annum.

Ankit Gyan

M. A. disposed of.