SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., A. VARADARAJAN AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.
Govt. of A.P., Appellant
Versus
Thummala Krishna Rao and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2031 of 1977 with 136 and 137 of 1978
Decided on16-3-1982.
WITH
Govt. of A.P., Appellant
Versus
Bandi Venkatarama and others, Respondents.
AND
Govt. of A.P., Appellant
Versus
Velluri Kesava Rao and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate General, Mr. B. Parthasarthi, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. P. Rama Reddy , Sr. Advocate Mr. A. V. V. Nair, Adovate with him (for No. 2) in C.A. No. 2031/77, (for No. 3) in 136/78 and (for No. 2 ) in C.A. No. 137/78; Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate (for Nos. 1 & 2) in C.A. No. 136/78; Mr. A.K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, M/s. K. Rajendra Choudhury , G. R. Subbarayan, I. Koti Reddy and Mahabir Singh, Advocates with him (for No.1 ) in C.A. No. 137/78 and Mr. B. Kanta Rao, Advocate (for No. 1) in C.A. No. 2031/77, for Respondents.
* (1) Writ Petn. No. 905 of 1975, D/- 30-6-1977 (Andh Pra)
(2) Writ Petns. Nos. 796 and 922 of 1975, D/-30-6-1977 (Andha. Pra.).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Article 226 - Section 2 (1) (2) - Section 5 - Sections 6 (1) - Section 7 - Special leave - Certificate granted - Writ Petitions – Court are concerned in these appeals with three groups of lands - Those lands arewhich corresponds to plot admeasuring 10 acres and 2 guntas; R. S. No. 10/2 which corresponds to plot No. 104 ad-measuring 9 acres and 33 guntas; and R.S. Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which correspond to plot No. 111 admeasuring 26 acres and 14 guntas - These lands belonged originally to and after his death they devolved on Sometime between the - Certain lands were acquired by the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act provisions of which are in material respects similar to those of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Lands were acquired for benefit of Osmania University which was then administered as a Department of Government of - University acquired an independent legal status of its own under Osmania University Revised Charter which was promulgated by the Nizam - That suit was dismissed in on ground that plot No. 111 was not acquired by Government and that though plots Nos. 94 and 104 were acquired University failed to prove its possession thereof within twelve years before the filing of the suit - In regard to plots Nos. 94 and 104 it was found by trial court that had encroached thereupon in year which was more than twelve years before filing of the sui- Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1959 filed by University against that judgment was dismissed on by High Court which affirmed findings of trial court - State Government was not impleaded as a party to those proceedings - Held, Conspectus of facts in instant case justifies view that question as to title to three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary inquiry contemplated by Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act. Long possession of respondents and their predecessor-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that property admittedly belonged originally to family of from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it - Question as to whether title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and further question whether Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit - May be that Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but until that is done - respondents cannot be evicted summarily - Appeals dismissed
The principle that the government cannot resort to summary eviction mechanisms against individuals with long-standing possession and bona fide claims is generally articulated in the paragraph discussing the limitations of summary proceedings for resolving complex ownership disputes. This paragraph emphasizes that such disputes involve intricate legal questions that cannot be adequately addressed through summary procedures, which are intended only for straightforward and recent encroachments (!) .
Additionally, the paragraph highlighting the importance of proper judicial adjudication for resolving ownership disputes reinforces the notion that long-term possessors with genuine claims are entitled to due process before eviction can be lawfully carried out (!) .
Please note that these principles are derived from the general legal understanding and are not tied to any specific case law references.
JUDGMENT
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— These three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated June 30, 1977 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, setting aside the judgment of a learned single Judge dated November 18, 1975 in Writ Petitions Nos. 1539. of 1974 and 798 of 1975. Civil Appeal No. 2031 (NCM of 1977 is by special leave while the other two appeals are by certificate granted by the High Court. The question which these appeals involve is whether the appellant, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, has the power to evict the respondents summarily in exercise of the power conferred by the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. This question arises an the following facts :
We are concerned in these appeals with three groups of lands situated in Habsiguda, Hyderabad East Taluk, Andhra Pradesh. Those lands are: R. S. No. 10/1, which corresponds to plot. No. 94 admeasuring 10 acres and 2 guntas; R. S. No. 10/2 which corresponds to plot No. 104 ad-measuring 9 acres and 33 guntas; and R.S. Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which correspond to plot No. 111 admeasuring 26 acres and 14 guntas. These lands belonged originally to Nawab Zainuddin and after his death, they devolved on Nawab Habibuddin. Sometime between the years 1932 and 1937, certain lands were acquired by the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act of 1309 Fasli, the provisions of which are in material respects similar to those of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands were acquired for the benefit of the Osmania University which was then administered as a Department of the Government of Hyderabad. The University acquired an independent legal status of its own under the Osmania University Revised Charter, 1947, which was promulgated by the Nizam.
2. The question whether the aforesaid three plots of land were included in the acquisition notified by the Government of Nizam became a bone of contention between the parties, the Osmania University contending that they were so included and that they were acquired for its benefit and the owner, Nawab Habibuddin, contending that the three plots were not acquired. On February 13, 1956 the Osmania University filed a suit (O.S. No. 1 of 1956) against Nawab Habibuddin, in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming that the three lands were acquired by the Government for its benefit and asking for his eviction from those lands. That suit was dismissed in 1959, on the ground that plot No. 111 was not acquired by the Government and that though plots Nos. 94 and 104 were acquired, the University failed to prove its possession thereof within twelve years before the filing of the suit. In regard to plots Nos. 94 and 104, it was found by the trial court that Habibuddin had encroached thereupon in the year 1942, which was more than twelve years before the filing of the suit. Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1959 filed by the University against that judgment was dismissed on January 24, 1964 by the High Court which affirmed the findings of the trial court. The State Government was not impleaded as a party to those proceedings.
3. On May 8, 1964 the Osmania University wrote a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, requesting it to take steps for the summary eviction of persons who were allegedly in unauthorised occupation of the 3 Plots. On December 8, 1964, the Tahsildar, Government of Andhra Pradesh, acting under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, issued a notice to Nawab Habibuddin to vacate the lands and on December 15, 1964 the Tahsildar passed an order evicting him from the lands. The appeal filed by Habibuddin to the Collector was dismissed in 1965 and the appeal against the decision of the Collector was dismissed by the Revenue Board in 1968. During the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Board, the respondents purchased the plots from Habibuddin for valuable consideration and on the death of Habibuddin, they were impleaded to the proceedings before the Revenue Board. They preferred an a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.