IMPORTANT POINT
Findings arrived at concurrently by three Fora below cannot be interfered with in appeal by Apex Court.

Headnote:Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982—Section 7(4) read with Rules 7, 8 and 9— Constitution of India—Article 136—Land grabbing—Compensation—Special Tribunal as well as Special Court returned a concurrent finding that land in question was allotted to Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2 society—Two reports independently made by Commissioner Advocate as well as Assistant Director were correctly relied upon by two Fora below and was upheld by High Court—Once title of Respondent No.3 was firmly established, appellants were duty bound to rebut these evidences and establish their title and possession—Appellants miserably failed to lead any evidence as to their title and only one evidence as to their possession was proved which related to year 1989 and nothing subsequent was shown to prove possession of appellants—Ground of procedural lacunae must fail as well being taken at a belated stage and on that basis appellants cannot be allowed to assail substantive adjudications and findings arrived at concurrently by three Fora below—Appeals dismissed. (Paras 9 to 12)
       Facts of Case:
       Respondent originally filed O.P. No.552 of 1988 before Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, against eight persons, including Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad, for declaration of title in respect of schedule property and for recovery of the same by declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 therein as land grabbers. Said application was allowed by Special Tribunal. However, claim for compensation was dismissed. Out of seven contesting respondents in said application, Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 to 7 filed an appeal before Special Court assailing order of Special Tribunal.
       Present appeals are directed against judgments and order dated 30.04.2007 and 29.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.25273 of 1999 and Review W.P. Misc. Petition No.26665 of 2007, respectively, whereby High Court has dismissed writ petition as also Review Petition filed by appellants herein.
       Findings of Court:
       Present appeals therefore must fail and we are not inclined to interfere with decision arrived at by High Court which is based on a correct analysis of facts and law and rendered in rational exercise of its discretion. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
       Result— Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted in both the matters.

2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgments and order dated 30.04.2007 and 29.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.25273 of 1999 and Review W.P. Misc. Petition No.26665 of 2007, respectively, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition as also the Review Petition filed by the appellants herein.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.3 herein, namely, Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, originally filed O.P. No.552 of 1988 before the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, against eight persons, including the Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad, for declaration of title in respect of schedule property and for recovery of the same by declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 therein as land grabbers. The said application was allowed by the Special Tribunal. However, the claim for compensation was dismissed. Out of seven contesting respondents in the said application, Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 to 7 filed an appeal before the Special Court (L.G.A. No.37 of 1993) assailing the order of the Special Tribunal.

4. The applicant of O.P. No.552 of 1988 also filed an appeal (L.G.A. No.43 of 1993) qua that part of the order whereunder his claim for compensation was dismissed. Both the appeals were heard together and by means of a common order dated 29.04.1994, the Special Court set aside the judgment of the Special Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal, giving liberty to the parties to adduce evidence.

5. Thereafter, further evidence was adduced on either side and after conducting fresh enquiry, the Special Tribunal again allowed the petition declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 before it as land grabbers and directed them to deliver vacant possession of the land to the applicant. However, the applicant’s claim for compensation was negatived. The contesting Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 to 7 again filed an appeal before the Special Court (L.G.A. No.21 of 1998) and the applicant filed cross-objections. The Special Court by its judgment dated 27.09.1999 dismissed the appeal as also the cross-objections.

6. The appellants herein, who were not parties either before the Special Tribunal or before the Special Court, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, being Writ Petition No.25273 of 1999, for a declaration that the orders of the Special Tribunal as well as the Special Court are not applicable to their industrial units, maintaining that they had been in peaceful possession and occupation of the plots in dispute for the last more than 50 years, and Respondent No.3, who was allotted a plot of land, on lease, by the Government for establishing industrial units, obtained another plot of land to an extent of 3000 Sq. Yds. and by initiating land grabbing proceedings against others, in collusion with the respondents, wanted to grab the lands of the appellants without impleading them. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 30.04.2007.

7. The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the High Court which was also dismissed. However, the appellants were granted three months’ time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and subsequently, dismissal of the review petition, the appellants have approached this Court.

8. The appellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court on two main grounds:-firstly, that the appellants were not parties to the entire proceedings before the Special Tribunal and the Special Court and further the orders were obtained without hearing and impleading them; and secondly, that the Special Tribunal and the Special Court did not adhere to the mandatory requirement of taking cognizance and providing opportunity to the interested parties in issuing notice as per third proviso to Section 7(4) of the Land Grabbing Act read with Rules 7, 8 & 9 and calling of the verifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2016 Supreme(SC) 550

IMPORTANT POINTFindings arrived at concurrently by three Fora below cannot be interfered with in appeal by Apex Court.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Findings arrived at concurrently by three Fora below cannot be interfered with in appeal by Apex Court.