Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
M. Durga Singh & Ors. – Appellants
versus
Yadagiri & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5645 OF 2006
Decided On : 18-04-2018
(1955) 1 SCR 117 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The appellants claim to be the owners of the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbers who are liable to be evicted.
The appellants preferred Land Grabbing Case before the Special Court established under the Act. In this case the contention urged by the appellants was that the respondents had grabbed about 500 square yards of land owned by the appellants in Survey No.87. The proceedings before the Special Court were dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants preferred a writ petition which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants have been taking several courts for a ride through continuous and fruitless litigation spanning several decades.
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
Key Points: - The Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 dismissed the land grabbing case for lack of ownership proof and unclear land description. (!) (!) - The Special Court found that appellants failed to establish ownership of the schedule property and that respondents were not proven to be land grabbers. (!) - The land description was vague: extent, boundaries, measurements, and location were not clearly identified. (!) - The plaint described land as about 500 sq. yards out of 34 guntas in Sy. No. 87, with boundaries listed; there were houses/structures on the land. (!) (!) - There was prior litigation spanning decades, with multiple suits, encroachments, and proceedings in civil courts, Special Court, and High Court; appellate court upheld dismissal with costs. (!) (!) (!) - The appellant’s reliance on Local Commissioner's report (Exhibit A-42) was found irrelevant or not proved before the Special Court; report pertained to different extents and lacked jurisdiction. (!) - The Court held that appellants invited trouble by pursuing litigation in forums lacking proper jurisdiction and did not withdraw to approach the correct forum under the Act. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The tenacity and stamina with which the appellants have been litigating for decades must be admired, but nothing else. We will subsequently mention the various proceedings instituted by the appellants which give us this belief.
2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to 500 square yards in Survey No.87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadapally Mandal, Hyderabad District. This area is said to form a part of the total area in Survey No.87 approximating acres 0-34 guntas. The appellants claims to be the owners of the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbers who are liable to be evicted.
3. Suit No.106 of 1967 was filed by the predecessors-in-interest against the predecessors of the respondents. The litigating parties are referred, for convenience, as appellants and respondents, regardless of who their predecessors in interest were. In this suit, a claim was made for 20 square yards of land from Survey No.87. In the paper book, the extent of land appears at one place to be 33.5 square yards. Be that as it may, the suit was dismissed on merits by the Trial Court on 29th March, 1975 and it was held that the appellants had not been able to prove their title to the suit land and the boundaries had not been specifically stated. It is important to note that one of the findings given by the Trial Court in the 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 of encroachment by the respondents on 79.49 square yards of land. This suit was compromised between the parties and disposed of on 18th October, 1979. As a result of the compromise, the respondents paid an amount of Rs.5887.50 to the appellants, who gave up all their claims to the land in dispute.
5. On or about 29th June, 1982 the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act) came into force. Section 8(1) of the Act is important and reads as follows:
“8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:—
(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;”
6. Notwithstanding the enactment, the appellants filed OS No.991 of 1987 with respect to 139 square yards said to have been grabbed by the respondents. It was contended before us by learned counsel for the appellants that the suit filed by the appellants themselves was not maintainable in the civil court in view of the provisions of the Act. In any event, the appellants proceeded with the suit which was dismissed in default on 19th September, 1991. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application for restoration of the suit but even that application was dismissed. We were informed that a revision petition was also dismissed.
7. The appellants then filed OS No.1095 of 1993 claiming that they had an apprehension that the respondents would encroach upon an area of 369 square yards. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court by a judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2002.
8. It is recorded in the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in OS No.1095 of 1993 that the appellants had instituted the following other proceedings:
Criminal complaint CC 754/67 City Magistrate Uda Singh
Vs
Mallesham Dismissed on 10.6.68
OS 106/67 on the file of IV Asst. Judge, CCC Hyd. Shambu Singh
Vs.
Mallesham Permanent injunction area of land 33.5 sq.ys in S.No.87 Chikkadpally Dismissed with costs 29.3.75
A.S.83/75 Appeal -do- -do- Dismissed on 12.10.76
O.S.1167/75 on the file of VII Asst. Judge, CCC Hyd. Uda Singh
Vs.
Mallesham Possession of land 78.49 sq.yds Ended in compromise. Suit dismissed on 18.10.79. Possession of defts. Admitt
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
