1. Dispute over land demarcation and allotment under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — challenge to land allotment based on survey identification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K.M. JOSEPH, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. – Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS. – Respondent(s)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 910-924 OF 2019 IN REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 3793-3807 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF 2015
Decided On : 01-10-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Mahesh Jethmalani, P. Raghuram, Ananga Bhattacharyya, Rohit Rao N., Devahuti Tamuli, Sania Perween, K. Radhakrishnan, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, D. Geeta, CH. Ramola Priya, V. S. Lakshmi, A.V. Balan, M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Dushyant A. Dave, Bina Madhavan, Waghaley, Satya Adiraju, M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co., Advocates
For the Parties :Mahesh Jethmalani, P. Raghuram, Ananga Bhattacharyya, Rohit Rao N., Devahuti Tamuli, Sania Perween, K. Radhakrishnan, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, D. Geeta, CH. Ramola Priya, V. S. Lakshmi, A.V. Balan, M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Dushyant A. Dave, Bina Madhavan, Waghaley, Satya Adiraju, M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co., Advocates
The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to correct misleading government survey reports, identifying the correct land (Survey No. 129/45/D) based on historical records and setting aside its improper allotment to a third party to ensure justice for the appellants.
Headnote:
Property law - Identification of plot - On the basis of affidavit and map produced in this round of litigation it is declared that Survey No. 19/P is the actual Survey No. 129/45/D - Article 142, Constitution of India invoked. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
This long winding litigation relates to identification of plot with Survey No. 129/45/D.
Result: Miscellaneous application disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Government contended the allotted land was vacant government land distinct from the disputed survey number; publication argued the survey number was distinct or non-existent. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The court found government claims contradicted by sale deeds and official orders, noting a pattern of reluctance by authorities to return valuable land. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 )
4. The Supreme Court may exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice when authorities provide misleading reports to avoid returning valuable land. (Para 13 )
5. Allotment of land set aside — land ordered to be delivered to appellants — government directed to refund payments with interest. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. Can the court reject a government survey report if it is found to be misleading or contradictory to documentary evidence?
Yes, the court can reject such reports, especially when documentary evidence like sale deeds and official orders contradict the report's findings and there is evidence of reluctance by authorities to part with valuable land. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 )
7. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court use Article 142 to resolve land disputes involving government reports?
The court may exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to prevent further litigation and ensure justice in extraordinary cases where authorities have taken conflicting stands or provided inaccurate reports. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. How does the court treat conflicting claims regarding whether land is government-owned or privately owned?
The court relies on pivotal documentary evidence, such as sale deeds and orders from competent authorities, to determine ownership and identity of the land. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. The matter before us has had a chequered history and has careered through the Courts resulting ultimately in Government filing a review petition against our judgment dated 16.08.2017, which review was disposed of by judgment dated 27.02.2019 seeking to locate where exactly Survey No. 129/45/D, Jubilee Hills, Sheikpet, Hyderabad, happens to be.
2. The writ petitions were originally filed challenging the proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and a proceeding by which certain land was handed over to the Andhra Prabha Publications(newspaper publication). These proceedings culminated in the judgment of a learned Single Judge, who ultimately stated that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings have abated, and that it would be necessary to get a Survey conducted by the competent authority in order to determine whether the allotment of land to the Andhra Prabha publications would be set aside. It was held by the learned Single Judge that if, after survey, it is clear that the extent of 8,000 square meters that was alloted to the Andhra Prabha publications was in fact Survey No. 129/45/D, the order allotting the aforesaid land to Andhra Prabha publications would have to be set aside. It was further ordered that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the said survey result, they shall be free to file appropriate remedies available to them in law.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andra Pradesh, by a judgment dated 16.03.2011, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The order of the Division bench was, in turn, set aside by this Court on 16.08.2017, by which judgment it was stated that the Division Bench erred in mixing up two sets of properties, as a result of which, after setting aside the order of the Division Bench, the direction contained in the order of the learned Single Judge was restored. Proceedings then arose in which our order dated 10.05.2018 reflects that Survey no. 129/45/D had to be demarcated. Despite an order of this Court dated 21.03.2018, this had not taken place, as a result of which the authorities were directed to submit on affidavit a copy of the demarcated area on a plan made out for that purpose.
4. The initial Survey that was then carried out stated that no such land as is contained in the aforesaid Survey number exists. When faced with this, the then learned senior counsel appearing for the State requested that the judgment itself be reviewed. A review petition was then filed which was disposed of by a detailed judgment by this Court dated 27.02.2019 in which this Court referred to various documents and then stated:
“Given the High Court judgment and the aforesaid documents, it is obviously not open to the Government to state that no such plot, that is Survey No. 129/45/D or 129/D-45, exists in Jubilee Hills, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.
This being the case, we reject the Committee Report that has since been filed dated 02.07.2018 and set it aside as this Report is not in consonance with the directions of the learned Single Judge which has been upheld by us.
We, therefore, direct the Government to demarcate the aforesaid plot being land on the ground as it exists today. This will be done strictly in accordance with the Single Judge’s directions by the Collector within a period of eight weeks from today.
The Review Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
List after eight weeks for compliance.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a Compliance Report has been given to this Court with a map appended thereto. Ultimately, the said land was located by the aforesaid Report on the said map as follows:
“Findings: - It is observed that
1. A portion of land now demarcated in Plot No. 129/45/D to an extent of Ac.O-38½ gts where an NOC was issued, corresponding to T.S. No. 20, Block-K, Ward No. 12 of Shaikpet Village and the remaining portion of land as per compromise deed in S.A. No. 354/2 of 1954-55 admeasuring Ac. 2 22½ gts is on northern side of the NOC is
