Back
2010 (6) Supreme 321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Meghmala & Ors. — Appellants
versus
G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6656-6657 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14447-14448 of 2007)
Decided on : 16-8-2010
AIR 1996 SC 742; AIR 1996 SC 3069; (1995) 2 Scale 23; AIR 1997 SC 3277; (1997) 6 SCC 473; AIR 1998 SC 1872; AIR 1999 SC 1486 – Relied upon
(b) Judicial Review – If a litigant files a review petition before filing the SLP and it remains pending till the SLP stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered – On the other hand if the review petition is filed subsequent to dismissal of the SLP, it amounts to abuse of process of the court. (Para 17)
AIR 2000 SC 2587; (2005) 12 SCC 149; AIR 2001 SC 2316; AIR 2004 SC 1738; AIR 2007 SC 1185 – Relied upon
(c) Judicial Review – An order obtained by playing fraud on the competent authority is void and non-est in the eyes of law – Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. (Paras 20 and 21)
AIR 1994 SC 853; 1956 All. E.R. 349; AIR 1994 SC 2151; (1994) 2 SCC 481; AIR 1992 SC 1555; AIR 2000 SC 1165; (1990) 3 SCC 655; (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100; (2004) 6 SCC 325; (2007) 1 SCC 80; AIR 2007 SC 2798; (2009) 8 SCC 751 – Relied upon
(d) Words and Phrases – Fraud – Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the proceedings – The expression “fraud” involves deceit and injury to the person deceived – Fraud and deception are synonymous although a deception may not always amount to fraud – Any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including – Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly and carelessly – Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court but a judgment may not be set aside merely because it was obtained by perjury. (Paras 25 to 27)
AIR 1963 SC 1572; (1996) 5 SCC 550; AIR 2005 SC 3110; (2008) 12 SCC 481; (2008) 13 SCC 170; AIR 1994 SC 853; AIR 1996 SC 2202; (2003) 8 SCC 319; AIR 2002 SC 33 ; AIR 2003 SC 4628; AIR 2004 SC 2836; (1929) AC 482; AIR 1986 SC 872 – Relied upon
(e) Specific Relief Act 1963 – Section 6 – A person even in illegal occupation of the land cannot be evicted without following the procedure prescribed under the law. (Paras 34 and 35)
AIR 1924 PC 124; AIR 1968 SC 620; AIR 1977 SC 619; AIR 1986 SC 872; AIR 1989 SC 2097; AIR 1995 SC 1377; AIR 1961 SC 1570; AIR 1986 SC 872; AIR 1989 SC 997; (2002) 4 SCC 134 – Relied upon
(f) Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – Section 10 – Burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he is not guilty – The respondent had to establish his locus standi to maintain the application for eviction of the applicant. (Para 37)
(g) Judicial Review – Respondents interested only in protracting the litigation by one way or the other – Fresh proceedings taken by the respondents before the Special Court therefore tantamount to malicious prosecution. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
In this case, in spite of the completion of several rounds of litigation upto the High Court, and one round of litigation before this Court, the respondents claim a right to abuse the process of the Court with the perception that whatever may be the orders of the High Court or this Court, inter-se parties the dispute shall be protracted and will never come to an end.
Finding of the Court:
Filing of a review application at a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the Court and such an application is not maintainable.
The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Filing a review application after approaching a superior court or tribunal is considered an abuse of the court's process and is generally not maintainable (!) (!) .
An order obtained through fraud on a competent authority is void and non-est in the eyes of law; such orders cannot be sustained (!) (!) .
Even in cases of illegal occupation, eviction must follow lawful procedures; forcible eviction without due process is unlawful (!) (!) .
The doctrine of merger of orders applies when a higher court or tribunal affirms or modifies a decision, but not when a review order is dismissed without a substantive decision on the merits (!) (!) .
The order refusing special leave to appeal does not merge with the order under challenge and does not bar subsequent review or proceedings (!) (!) .
The concept of fraud includes deceit, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, and collusion, which vitiate proceedings and can lead to the annulment of orders obtained through such means (!) (!) .
Orders obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation, or through suppression of material facts, are voidable and can be challenged at any stage, especially if such fraud is proved (!) (!) .
The burden of proof in cases under the relevant land laws, such as the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, is on the accused to establish their innocence, and the law presumes guilt unless proven otherwise (!) .
Illegal land occupation cannot be justified without following proper legal procedures, and even trespassers are entitled to protection against forcible eviction unless lawfully dispossessed (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize that litigation should not be used as a tool for harassment or protraction of disputes, and repeated attempts to re-litigate settled issues are viewed as abuse of process (!) (!) .
The finality of judgments is recognized, but only when they are free from fraud, misrepresentation, or procedural irregularities; otherwise, such judgments can be set aside (!) (!) .
The appeals in this case were allowed because the High Court's order was found to be unsustainable due to failure to consider the above principles, including the abuse of process and fraud allegations (!) .
The judgments and orders of the lower courts, which correctly identified the land ownership and dismissed the respondents’ claims of fraud and misidentification, were restored (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal process must be respected, and any attempt to manipulate or mislead the court through fraud or delay tactics undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Judicial pronouncements unlike sand dunes are known for their stability/finality. However, in this case, in spite of the completion of several rounds of litigation upto the High Court, and one round of litigation before this Court, the respondents claim a right to abuse the process of the Court with the perception that whatever may be the orders of the High Court or this Court, inter-se parties the dispute shall be protracted and will never come to an end.
3. These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19962-19963 of 2006, by which the High Court has allowed the said petitions against the Judgment and order of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called, “Act 1982”), dismissing the review application No. 397/2005 in LGC No. 76/1996 and in LGCSR 357/2005.
4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present cases are as under :-
(A) V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother (vendors) had a huge chunk of land and a part of it could have been the subject matter of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act 1976). The said vendors entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.01.1976 for selling a part of the land (hereinafter called ‘suit land’) to a cooperative society namely, Gruha Lakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called, “the Society”). The vendors, V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother executed a sale deed in favour of A. Sambashiva Rao (hereinafter called the appellant/applicant) which was registered on 21.05.1980 vide document No. 4758/80 and the appellants were put in possession of the suit land.
(B) The appellant/applicant- vendee filed LGC No. 76/1996 against the respondents under the provisions of the Act, 1982 alleging that he had been working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was mostly out of station, and the respondents had forcibly grabbed his land and raised construction thereon. Thus, he sought the relief of their dispossession and action against them under the provisions of the Act, 1982.
(C) After complying with the requirements of the statutory provisions i.e.taking the sanction etc., the respondents were issued a show cause notice. The respondents filed their reply submitting that in respect of the suit land, there was an agreement to sell, dated 23.01.1976, in favour of the society and once such an agreement to sell had been executed, vendors had no right to transfer the land in favour of the appellant/applicant. The society had allotted the suit land in their favour, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.
(D) The Special Court after appreciating the evidence, vide Judgment and order dated 4.11.1997 came to the conclusion that the appellant/applicant was the owner of the suit land and that the respondents had no right, title or claim over the suit land. They had forcibly occupied the land and they were land grabbers, thus, they were liable to be evicted and orders for that purpose were passed.
(E) Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court dated 4.11.1997, the respondents preferred writ petition No. 33572/1997 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 3.07.2001.
(F) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the respondents preferred Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18218/2001 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.11.2001 giving liberty to the respondents to file review petition before the High Court.
(G) The respondents filed review petition No. 31506/2002 before the High Court. However, the said review petition was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 16.12.2002.
(H) In the intervening period, when the review petition was pending before the High Court, the appellant/applicant filed execution
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
