IMPORTANT POINTS
Principle of constructive res judicata is applicable to writ case.
Filing of an appeal destroys the finality of judgment under appeal.
Once vesting takes place State has absolute title and ownership over it.
A judgment of Supreme Court is binding on all and it cannot be contended that the full facts had not been placed before the Court.
An adjudication is conclusive and binding not only as to the actual matter determined but also as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided.

Headnote:(a) U.P. Land Ceiling Act, 176 – Section 6(1) Explanation – Commencement of the Act – Where any land, not being vacant land, situated in a State in which this Act is in force has become vacant land by any reason whatsoever, the date on which such land becomes vacant land would be the date of the commencement of the Act as regards such land. (Para 12)
        (b) U.P. Land Ceiling Act, 176 – Section 2(h) – Master plan means any plan prepared even subsequent to the coming into force of the Act – Therefore Master plan prepared as per law in force even subsequent to enforcement of the Act is to be taken into consideration to determine whether a particular piece of land is vacant land or not. (Paras 10 and 11)
        (2002) 1 SCC 227 – Relied upon
        (1993) 2 SCC 546 – Distinguished
        (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 11 Explanation IV – Constructive res judicata – Principle of constructive res judicata is applicable to writ case. (Para 13)
        (1990) 2 SCC 715; (2005) 7 SCC 190 – Relied upon
        (d) Estoppel – Owners of the land making contradictory declarations under the Land Reforms act and the ULC Act and changing their stand again and again – Not permissible. (Para 18)
        (e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 96 and 100 – Doctrine of merger – Filing of an appeal destroys the finality of judgment under appeal – Any order passed by the Supreme Court after grant of special leave would be an appellate order and attract the applicability of the doctrine of merger – High Court order appealed against, therefore, cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. (Paras 20 to 23)
        (2004) 1 SCC 712; (1974) 2 SCC 453; (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Relied upon
        (f) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(3) – Once vesting takes place State has absolute title and ownership over it – Owner has no further say in respect of the land that has vested in the State. (Para 23)
        2010 (7) Scale 571 – Relied upon
        (g) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 96 and 100 – Allowing the appeal meant that the judgment appealed against was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed. (Paras 25 and 36)
        (h) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 152 – Correction of decree – No application filed for correction of the decree and the decree is consistent with the judgment – No occasion for correction. (Para 26)
        (2003) 1 SCC 197 – Distinguished
        (i) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XX, Rule 6 r/w Order LXI, Rule 31 – Order XX casts an obligation on the trial court to clearly indicate the relief or reliefs to which a party has been found entitled – Similarly, the appellate court is obliged in terms of Order LXI to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and when the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. (Para 27)
        (j) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 96 and 100 – Doctrine of merger – Well settled that once a decision of the High Court is set aside by this Court, it ceases to exist. (Para 27)
        (1984) 2 SCC 324; (1970) 2 SCC 267; (1989) 3 SCC 151; (2002) 4 SCC 638 – Relied upon
        (2001) 5 SCC 762; (2006) 1 SCC 638; (2007) 1 SCC 457 – Distinguished
        (k) Binding Precedent – A judgment of Supreme Court is binding on all – It is not open to contend that the full facts had not been placed before the Court. (Paras 33 and 34)
        [1982] 1 A.C; (1988) 2 SCC 587; (2004) 12 SCC 645; (2007) 4 SCC 221 – Relied upon
        (l) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 33 – Binding precedent – An adjudication is conclusive and binding not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided. (Para 38)
        (1986) 1 SCC 100; (1926)1 Appeal Cases155 – Relied upon
        (m) Delay and latches – Issue raised in writ petition after 32 years of filing statement under section 6 of Land Reforms Act and after 26 years of conclusion of ULC proceedings – Rightly rejected on the ground of delay and latches. (Para 39)
        (n) A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 – Where possession is to be taken of a large tract of land then it is permissible to take possession by a properly executed Panchanama. (Para 42)
        (2009) 10 SCC 501 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        1. Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and 10 others were the original owners of land admeasuring 526.07 acres in Survey No. 83. Out of the said land, an extent of 252.33 acres is assessed to revenue as cultivable agricultural land and the remaining extent of 273.14 acres is treated as pote-kharab(un-cultivable) land.
        2. On 01.01.1975, the said owners filed eleven declarations under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Authority under the Land Reforms Act declared about 99 acres as surplus in the hands of 4 declarants and possession was also taken on 11.04.1975.
        3. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force on 17.02.1976. The owners, through their General Power of Attorney (GPA), filed declarations under a mistaken impression that the ULC Act was applicable to their land, though the same was inapplicable.
        4. Final statements under Section 9 were issued declaring the surplus area by each of the declarant followed by notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act.
        5. 468 acres out of the said land were allotted to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
        6. The land in Survey no. 83 was vested to the State Government and a notice was issued for surrendering possession, however, the possession was not surrendered.
        7. The State Government granted exemption upto an extent of 5 acres after excluding 40% of the area to be set apart for laying of roads as per lay out rules. Thus, by virtue of this exemption, each holder of excess land is now entitled to hold 5 acres instead of 1000 sq meters.
        8. A number of persons including the appellants herein purchased small extents of land in Survey No. 83 by registered sale deeds between January and March 1991 and are in possession of the same ever since their purchase.
        9. On 05.08.1992, Inspector General of Registration issued a memo directing the District Registrar to cancel the sale deeds. The District Registrar, on 03.09.1993, ordered cancellation of the sale deeds.
        10. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. In view of the law declared in those appeals, the Competent Authority is now statutorily bound to compute the land afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the light of the law declared in Audikesava Reddy’s case.
        11. The State Government decided to allot the excess land to third parties who were in occupation of such excess land on payment of prescribed regularization charges and as per the conditions set out. By way of representation, the owners requested the Competent Authority to compute the holdings afresh. The owners also stated in their representations that they themselves would like to retain the excess land in their occupation by paying the requisite compensation.
        12. Without taking any action on the aforesaid three representations, the State Government, issued G.O.M. No. 161 dated 13.02.2006 purporting to allot Ac.424.13 gts out of Ac.526.27 gts in Survey No. 83 to the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. On 15.02.2006, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 183, extending the time up to 31st March 2006 for submitting the applications accompanied by the amount of compensation.
        13. Before the High Court, four writ petitions were filed by the purchasers, owners as well as Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
       Finding of the Court:
        The appeals have no merit.
       Result:
        CAs Nos. 3813 of 1996, 7238 and 7239 of 2001 were allowed and CAs Nos. 1149 of 1985 and 10851 of 1996 dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) These appeals are directed against a common judgment and final order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 4121, 4141, 4144 and 5776 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No. 161, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 13.02.2006 and connected proceedings passed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

2) Brief facts:-

(a) One Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and 10 others were the original owners of land admeasuring 526.07 acres in Survey No. 83 situated at Village Raidurg (Panmaktha) of Ranga Reddy District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Out of the said land, an extent of 252.33 acres is assessed to revenue as cultivable agricultural land and the remaining extent of 273.14 acres is treated as pote-kharab(un-cultivable) land. On 07.07.1974, the owners executed registered General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as “GPA”) in favour of a partnership firm known as “Sri Venkateswara Enterprises” represented by its Managing Partners A. Ramaswamy and A. Satyanarayana. On 01.01.1975, the A.P. Land Reforms Act, 1975 came into force. Since the land in Survey No.83 was an agricultural land, the said owners filed eleven declarations under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Land Reforms Act”) and the Authority under the Land Reforms Act declared about 99 acres as surplus in the hands of 4 declarants and possession was also taken on 11.04.1975. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the ULC Act’) came into force on 17.02.1976. The owners, through their GPA, filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act under a mistaken impression that the ULC Act was applicable to their land, though the same was inapplicable for the reason that the land in question was agricultural land and the same was not included in the Master Plan as on the date of commencement of the ULC Act. On 01.07.1977, draft statements under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act together with notice under Section 8(3) were served inviting objections to the draft statement prepared under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act but no orders were passed on any of the declarations. On 06.12.1979 & 25.01.1980, final statements under Section 9 were issued declaring the surplus area by each of the declarant. On 16.09.1980 & 30.01.1980, the Competent Authority issued notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act.

(b) By G.O.Ms. No. 391 MA, dated 23.06.1980, the Master Plan as on 17.02.1976 was amended and the land in Survey No. 83 was included in the Second Master Plan which came into force w.e.f. 29.09.1980 vide Government Memo No. 1439-UC.I/80-2, dated 10.12.1980 as a result of which re-computation of the land in the said Survey No. 83 had to be carried out in accordance with the ULC Act.

(c) By G.O.Ms.No. 5013 dated 19.12.1980, the State Government, under Section 23 of the ULC Act, allotted 468 acres out of the said land to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to ‘HUDA’).

The Competent Authority vide notification dated 24.01.1981, under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, vested the land in Survey No. 83 to the State Government. On 26.12.1981, the Competent Authority issued a notice under Section 10(5) for surrendering possession, however, the possession was not surrendered.

(d) By G.O. Ms.No. 733 dated 31.10.1988 read with G.O.Ms.No. 289 dated 01.06.1989 and G.O. Ms. No. 217 dated 18.04.2000, the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 20(1) of the ULC Act granted exemption upto an extent of 5 acres after excluding 40% of the area to be set apart for laying of roads as per lay out rules. Thus, by virtue of this exemption, each holder of excess land is now entitled to hold 5 acres instead of 1000 sq meters. A number of persons including the appellants herein purchased small extent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 705

Cases Referred (18)