SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 745

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Meghmala & Others
Versus
G. Narasimha Reddy & Others
Civil Appeal Nos. 6656-6657 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14447-14448 of 2007)
Decided on : 16-08-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Senior Advocate, G. Seshagiri Rao, Sridhar Potaraju, Advocates. For the Respondents: M.V. Durga Prasad,
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Amar Pal, Bharat J. Joshi, Ms. T. Anamika, D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Sanjai Kumar Pathak , Advocates.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act, 1982 - Urban Land Act, 1976 - Suit decree - Land case - Judicial pronouncements unlike sand dunes is 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 - Held, nature of offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration provide for presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those Statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused - Thus, the Legislature has adopted a deviating course from ordinary criminal law shifting the burden on the accused to prove that he was not guilty - High Court while deciding these cases has not considered the issue of the locus standi of the respondents to maintain the application for eviction of the appellant/applicant - Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the court - Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution - Appeal allowed.

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 execut













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top