Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 1370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph, JJ.
Molugu Mahipal Reddy And Others - Appellants
Vs.
M. Pradeep Kumar And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8749-8750 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 29822-29823 of 2014), Civil Appeal Nos. 8751-8752 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 559-560 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 8753-8754 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8424-8425 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 8755-8756 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8422-8423 of 2015) and Civil Appeal Nos. 8757-8758 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13411-13412 of 2015)
Decided On : 16-10-2015
M.N. Rao, Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocates, B. Ramana Murthy, A. Ramesh, P. Srinivasa Reddy, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Shilpi Gupta, G. Madhavi, Promila, Annam D.N. Rao, Annam Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam Jain, Vaishali and Ankita Chadha, Advocates.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11-A – Acquisition of Land – Jurisdiction – Acquitted - It was urged that land situate in Survey of Village District was private property with which State Government has no concern whatsoever to call for any intervention by the High Court in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction – Held, Secondly question whether land underlying was Government land or privately owned land was a matter on which any finding by High Court was bound to adversely affect and prejudice Appellants herein - Appellants were not however, arrayed as parties either earlier rounds of litigation even when they claim title to the property in question on basis of properly registered instruments of sale in their favour writ Petitioner appears to have withheld deliberately or otherwise that information from the Court and secured an order from High Court behind the back of the Appellants - Thirdly the question whether notification issued by Government Section as early could be assailed by a public activist years after the same was issued is also required to considered by the High Court - In regard transfer of possession question whether Appellants/owners of the land were dispossessed or their predecessors had been dispossessed as suggested by Government or whether the possession was only on papers which was returned by Government in terms of proceedings of Collector referred to earlier also calls for the scrutiny and determination by High Court - Whether or not there was any award made or any payment made to earlier land-owners and whether or not the notification Section was validly issued and whether same was preceded by a notice Section are also matters that need to be examined by High Court - So also question whether Section Act has any application to cases where land is vested in the Government Section needs to be addressed having regard to the pronouncements this Court to which learned Counsel for parties made a reference - All told several issues have been raised that need to be suitably and articulately formulated and addressed by High Court before it can issue any direction on subject – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
T.S. Thakur, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of common judgments and orders dated 22nd May, 2014 and 11th August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in PIL No. 130 of 2014 and Review W.P.M.P. No. 257 of 2014. By order dated 22nd May, 2014, a Division Bench of the High Court has allowed PIL No. 130 of 2014 with a direction to the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar arrayed as Respondents No. 1 to 3 in the said petition to implement the orders passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the said order. The operative portion of the order passed by the High Court reads as under:
14. In view of the above orders of this Court, the writ Petitioner rightly contended that the action of the 5th Respondent-Sub Registrar, Kapra Sub Registrar Office, Hyderabad, in registering house/land in Sy. No. 215 of Kapra Village, Keesar Mandal, Rangareddy District, under registered document No. 1773/2014 dated 19.5.2014, is illegal as it is causing illegal injury to the innocent third parties, as such the said action cannot be appreciated. As rightly stated by the Petitioner in view of the legal bar against the unofficial Respondent No. 10 to 14 to establish their rights over the said land as earlier held by this Court, the unofficial Respondents are disposing the subject lands in Sy. No. 215, 222, 244 and 246 to the various third parties without establishing their rights over the said lands or the innocent purchasers who have been affected and for 7th Respondent to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against the persons who are responsible for execution and registration of the said documents.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the official Respondent 1 to 3 are directed to implement the orders of this Court referred to above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
16. The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
3. In civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29822-29823 of 2014 and SLP (C) Nos. 559-560 of 2015, the Appellants have assailed the order, aforementioned, to the extent the same directs action by the officers, aforementioned, in regard to lands situate in Survey Nos. 244 and 246 of Village Kapra, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is contended by Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants in the said appeals, that the High Court had erroneously brought in Survey Nos. 244 and 246 into controversy even when there were neither any acquisition proceedings qua the said survey numbers at any earlier point of time nor was there any question of title to be decided qua the said land. The High Court, it was argued, without doing so much as verifying the true facts concerning the two survey numbers, had included them in the direction issued by it which was not only erroneous but wholly unjustified. It was urged that land situate in Survey Nos. 244 and 246 of the Village Kapra, Keesara Mandal in the Ranga Reddy District, was private property with which the State Government has no concern whatsoever to call for any intervention by the High Court in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction.
4. On behalf of the writ Petitioner-Respondent No. 1, it was submitted by Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned senior Counsel, that PIL No. 130 of 2014 was meant to protect public property situate in Survey Nos. 215 and 222 only and that writ Petitioners had no objection in case the direction of the High Court concerning Survey Nos. 244 and 246 was set aside.
5. In that view, therefore, we do not consider it necessary to go any deeper into the matter insofar as Survey Nos. 244 and 246 are concerned which survey numbers even according to the writ Petition
