2023 Supreme(SC) 674

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Yadaiah and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4835 Of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2523 of 2022] With Civil Appeal No.4836 Of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2060 of 2022] With Civil Appeal No.4837 Of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2350 of 2022] With Civil Appeal No.4838 Of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2110 of 2022] With Civil Appeal No.4839 Of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2185 of 2022] With Civil Appeal No.4840 Of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6714 of 2022]
Decided On : 01-08-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Property Law – There is difference between the terms ‘acquisition’ and ‘resumption’ – Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of State to deprive an individual’s enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in first place – Term ‘resumption’ must not be conflated with term ‘acquisition’ as employed within meaning of Article 300A of Constitution so as to create a right to compensation.
(2) Res Judicata – Only determinations which are fundamental would result in application of doctrine of res judicata – Effective test to distinguish between a fundamental or collateral determination is hinged on inquiry of whether concerned determination was so vital to decision that without which decision itself cannot stand independently – Any determination, despite being deliberate or formal, cannot give rise to application of doctrine of res judicata if they are not fundamental in nature.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Only determinations which are fundamental would result in application of doctrine of res judicata – Only those findings, without which Court cannot adjudicate a dispute and also form vital cog in reasoning of a definite conclusion on an issue on merits, constitute res judicata between same set of parties in subsequent proceedings – However, in the process of arriving at a final conclusion, if Court makes any incidental, supplemental or nonessential observations which are not foundational to final determination, same would not tie down hands of courts in future – Effective test to distinguish between a fundamental or collateral determination is hinged on inquiry of whether concerned determination was so vital to decision that without which decision itself cannot stand independently – Any determination, despite being deliberate or formal, cannot give rise to application of doctrine of res judicata if they are not fundamental in nature. (Paras 43 and 45)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act of 1977 – Section 77 – Resumption of non-occupied land – Proceedings emanating out of Second SCN are not barred by doctrine of res judicata or extended doctrine of constructive res judicata – Issues raised in Second SCN were never adjudicated upon in first place – Plea that same should have been raised in earlier proceedings, is irrelevant in light of liberty granted by High Court whereby Revenue authorities were expressly permitted to initiate fresh proceedings for violation of assignment conditions. (Paras 47 and 48)

(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act of 1977 – Section 3 – Transfer of land – Term ‘transfer’ as defined under 1977 Act is much more inclusive than one employed in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Objective of 1977 Act was manifestly intended to save landless poor persons from clutches of rich and resourceful, who deprived them of precious title assigned to them by Government for their occupation and source of livelihood – GPA executed in favour of GPA holder in instant case constitutes a ‘transfer’ under 1977 Act and consequently would also result in violation of Section 3 of 1977 Act. (Paras 64 and 65)

(D) Property Law – ‘Acquisition’ and ‘Resumption’ – There is difference between terms ‘acquisition’ and ‘resumption’ – While both terms indicate deprivation of a right, there exists a significant distinction in their actual legal connotation – Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of State to deprive an individual’s enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in first place – Term ‘resumption’ must not be conflated with term ‘acquisition’ as employed within meaning of Article 300A of Constitution so as to create a right to compensation. (Para 73)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against common judgment dated 31.12.2021 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Telangana and its revenue authorities has been allowed, reversing the decision of Single Judge. Consequently, resumption order dated 27.01.2007, which forms core of present disputes concerning assignment of non-occupied land in the 1960s to landless Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons [Assignees] for the purpose of cultivation, has been confirmed

Findings of Court:

(a) The Subject Land in its entirety is declared to have vested in the State Government. On further allotment, its ownership and possessory rights, free from all encumbrances, stand transferred in favour of the Greyhounds;

(b) No Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any claim whatsoever on behalf of any Assignee, their legal representative, GPA holder or any other claimant under any Agreement to sell or other instruments, claiming direct or indirect interests in the Subject Land; and

(c) There shall be a final quietus of title and possessory dispute over the Subject Land in favour of the Respondent-State and/or the agency to whom the said land has been allotted.

Result : Appeals dismissed.