Supreme Court of India
M. DURGA SINGH & ORS. versus YADAGIRI & ORS. on 18 April 2018
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 863
M. DURGA SINGH & ORS.
v.
YADAGIRI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2006)
APRIL 18, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 –s.8(1) – Land grabbing – Appellant filing a land grabbing caseagainst respondent under the 1982 Act – Allegation that respondentgrabbed about 500 sq yards of land owned by appellants – Dismissalby the Special Court – Appellant had already filed couple ofproceedings alleging encroachment and land grabbing before thecivil court which were also dismissed – Writ petition against theSpecial court’s order also dismissed – On appeal, held: Appellantsthemselves approached the civil court and now they cannot submitthat they approached the wrong forum – If the appellants believedthat the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suitinstituted by them, then the proper course of action would havebeen to withdraw the suits and proceed under the Act and not topursue more proceedings – Appellants invited trouble either bypursuing the litigation in the wrong forum or by not approachingthe right forum – For this, the appellants are themselves to be blamedand cannot hide behind the veil of a lack of jurisdiction of the civilcourt – Appellants were given a full-fledged hearing by the SpecialCourt under the Act – Special court held that the appellants failedto establish that they are the owners of the schedule property; thatthe respondents had trespassed on the suit property without legalentitlement, thus, were land grabbers; and that there is no certaintyabout the land alleged to have been grabbed by the respondents –Appellants sought to rely upon a report given by the LocalCommissioner appointed by the civil court which did not indicatemuch – Said report was not proved in evidence before the SpecialCourt or even in the Suit – Moreso, the Local Commissioner wasnot examined with regard to the correctness of the report – Further,if the submission of the appellants that the suits instituted after 1982are not maintainable, then even the report of the Local Commissioner
863
A
B
CDEF
G
H
Ais without jurisdiction – Thus, Special Court fully justified indismissing the land grabbing case.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5645of 2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the High CourtBJudicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 21808 of1994.
B. H. Marlapally, Sr. Adv., Apoorv Shukla, V. Sriidhar Reddy, AjitWagh, Aditya Gaggar, V. N. Raghupathy, M. Kishan Singh, Advs. forthe Appellants.
C
B. Adinarayana, Sr. Adv., M. Srinivas R. Rao, Arun Devdas,Sharvanth, Goli Ramakrishna, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, V. G. Pragasam, G.Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Ms. Filza Moonis, BharatJ. Joshi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi (for M/s. Venkat Palwai LawAssociates), Advs. for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. The tenacity and stamina with whichthe appellants have been litigating for decades must be admired, butnothing else. We will subsequently mention the various proceedingsinstituted by the appellants which give us this belief.
E
2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to 500 square yards in SurveyNo.87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadapally Mandal, Hyderabad District.This area is said to form a part of the total area in Survey No.87approximating acres 0-34 guntas. The appellants claims to be the ownersof the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbersFwho are liable to be evicted.
3. Suit No.106 of 1967 was filed by the predecessors-in-interestagainst the predecessors of the respondents. The litigating parties arereferred, for convenience, as appellants and respondents, regardless ofwho their predecessors in interest were. In this suit, a claim was madeGfor 20 square yards of land from Survey No.87. In the paper book, theextent of land appears at one place to be 33.5 square yards. Be that asit may, the suit was dismissed on merits by the Trial Court on 29[th] March,1975 and it was held that the appellants had not been able to prove theirtitle to the suit land and the boundaries had not been specifically stated.
H
It is important to note that one of the findings given by the Trial Court inthe judgment is that the respondents had a house on the land in dispute.
4. The appellants later filed OS No.1167 of 1975 for removal ofencroachment by the respondents on 79.49 square yards of land. Thissuit was compromised between the parties and disposed of on 18[th]October, 1979. As a result of the compromise, the respondents paid anamount of Rs.5887.50 to the appellants, who gave up all their claims tothe land in dispute.
5. On or about 29[th] June, 1982 the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act) came into force. Section8(1) of the Act is important and reads as follows:
“8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:—
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application madeby any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and tryevery case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or withrespect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, theland grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of thisAct, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interimdirections) as it deems fit;”
6. Notwithstanding the enactment, the appellants filed OS No.991of 1987 with respect to 139 square yards said to have been grabbed bythe respondents. It was contended before us by learned counsel for theappellants that the suit filed by the appellants themselves was notmaintainable in the civil court in view of the provisions of the Act. Inany event, the appellants proceeded with the suit which was dismissedin default on 19[th] September, 1991. Thereafter, the appellants filed anapplication for restoration of the suit but even that application wasdismissed. We were informed that a revision petition was also dismissed.
7. The appellants then filed OS No.1095 of 1993 claiming thatthey had an apprehension that the respondents would encroach upon anarea of 369 square yards. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court bya judgment and decree dated 30[th] September, 2002.
8. It is recorded in the judgment and decree passed by the CivilCourt in OS No.1095 of 1993 that the appellants had instituted thefollowing other proceedings:
A
BC
D
EF
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
9. We may mention that the record of the appeal before us showsthat a couple of other proceedings were also instituted by the appellantsFconfirming their status as chronic litigants.
10. Eventually, the appellants preferred Land Grabbing Case No.17 of 1993 before the Special Court established under the Act. In thiscase the contention urged by the appellants was that the respondentshad grabbed about 500 square yards of land owned by the appellants inGSurvey No.87. The proceedings before the Special Court were dismissedby a judgment and order dated 11[th] October, 1994.
11. Thereafter, the appellants preferred a writ petition in the AndhraPradesh High Court being Writ Petition No.21808 of 1994. This writpetition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order datedH12[th] December, 2002.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants urged before us that theproceedings instituted by the appellants before the civil court after 1982were not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Act and the decreepassed by the civil court was a nullity. Therefore, nothing prohibited theappellants from approaching the Special Court under the Act. Reliancewas placed on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan[1]. It is not necessary todelve into this issue.
13. We can only say that the appellants themselves approachedthe civil court and it is now too late for them to contend that theyapproached the wrong forum. If the appellants honestly believed thatthe civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted bythem, then the proper course of action would have been to withdraw thesuits and proceed under the Act. Instead, as far as OS No. 991 of 1987is concerned, after the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, theappellants preferred an application for restoration which was dismissedas also perhaps a revision petition. At least at that point of time, wisdomshould have dawned upon the appellants that the civil court had nojurisdiction in the matter but quite to the contrary, they proceeded withthe litigation and later instituted some more proceedings in the civil court.
14. It is quite clear to us that whatever be the position in law, theappellants invited trouble either by pursuing the litigation in the wrongforum or by not approaching the right forum. For this, the appellantshave only themselves to blame and cannot hide behind the veil of a lackof jurisdiction of the civil court.
15. That apart, the appellants were given a full-fledged hearingby the Special Court under the Act in which the following issues wereframed:
1. Whether the petitioners are the owners of the petition scheduleproperty?
2. Whether the respondents are not land grabbers within themeaning of Act No. 12 of 1982
3. To what relief.
Additional issue framed on 12.09.1994
Whether the judgments operate as res judicata and whether theapplicants are estopped from contending that they are the ownersof the schedule property by virtue of the said judgments?
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
16. The Special Court dealt with all these issues and concludedthat the appellants had failed to establish that they are the owners of theschedule property and there was no material to establish their ownership.It was also held that the appellants had not been able to show that therespondents had trespassed on the suit property without legal entitlementand were therefore land grabbers within the meaning of the Act.
B
17. What is more serious is that the Special Court concluded thatthere is no certainty about the land alleged to have been grabbed by therespondents. The location of the land was not clear, the area was notclearly identified, the description of the land was very vague, nomeasurements of the land were given and the boundaries of the landCwere also not clear.
18. In this regard, our attention was drawn by learned counsel forthe respondents to the description of the land allegedly grabbed by therespondents as stated in the plaint filed before the Special Court. Theextent of the land is described in the following terms:
D
E
F
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in theplaint before the Special Court there is a clear admission by the appellantsGthat the respondents had a construction on the land in question whichwas also a finding given in Suit No. 106 of 1967.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to rely upon a reportgiven by the Local Commissioner appointed by the civil court in O.SNo.1095 of 1993. The report of the Local Commissioner is dated 17[th]H
October, 1993 and was marked as Exhibit A-42. The report indicatesthat the respondents are in possession of 607 square yards which isabout 5 guntas and the appellants are in possession of 3025 square yardswhich is about 25 guntas. Essentially, the report of the LocalCommissioner does not show anything more than this. We also find thatthis report was exhibited in Suit No.1095 of 1993 but it was not proved inevidence before the Special Court or even in Suit No.1095 of 1993. TheLocal Commissioner was not examined with regard to the correctnessor otherwise of the report. We also find that exhibit A-42 pertains onlyto 139 square yards of the land in question and not 500 square yards.This is quite apart from the fact that if the contention of the appellants isthat the suits instituted after 1982 are not maintainable, then even thereport of the Local Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
20. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concludingthat the Special Court was fully justified in dismissing the land grabbingcase filed by the appellants and the High Court was also justified indismissing the writ petition filed by them. We find absolutely no reasonto interfere with the views expressed and accordingly we dismiss theappeal with costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants for taking severalcourts for a ride through continuous and fruitless litigation spanning severaldecades.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H