2011 Supreme(SC) 257

2011 (2) Supreme 293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Pesara Pushpamala Reddy — Appellant
versus
G. Veera Swamy and Others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2313 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21828 OF 2007)
with
R.S. Murthy — Appellant
versus
German Reddy & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2314 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23821 of 2008)
Decided on : 4-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
If, a person who claims title, ownership or lawful possession of any land is already a party in proceedings under Sections 7-A or 8 of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in the Special Tribunal or Special Court and he has notice of such proceedings and has had due opportunity to participate in said proceedings and assert his title, ownership or lawful possession over the land, he cannot challenge the proceedings of the Special Tribunal or the Special Court on the ground that notification or the publication of the notice had not been made in accordance with the Act and Rules.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Sections 7-A, 8 and 9 -Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 - Rules 6,7-Issue in consideration whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or Special Court to call for a report of Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a case under the Act, 1982 - Held report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, is to be based on Government records and on proof of possession, ownership and use of land and payment of dues to Government and/or local inspection- Where an applicant before the Special Tribunal or the Special Court furnishes certified copies of Government records to show proof of possession, ownership and use of the land and also payment of dues to the Government, in support of the statements made in the application and the Special Tribunal or the Special Court is satisfied about the truth of the statements made in the application, it may not be necessary for Special Tribunal or Special Court to refer application to Mandal Revenue Officer for inspection or verification- Object of Rule 6 of Rules is to assist Special Tribunal or Special Court to arrive at a correct decision on the claims and allegations made in the application under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A and sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act to the Special Tribunal or the Special Court and if this very object can be achieved without referring the application of the case to Mandal Revenue Officer, it may not be necessary for Special Tribunal or the Special Court to make a reference to Mandal Revenue Officer -Hence held that there is no compelling duty on Special Tribunal or Special Court to refer the application under Section 7-A (1) or under Section 8 to the Mandal Revenue Officer (Paras 12, 13)

        Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Sections 7-A, 8 and 9 -Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 - Rules 6,7-Issue in consideration whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to publish a notification in Gazette notifying the fact of cognizance of a case under Act- Held all persons who may not have been impleaded as a party in applications filed under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A or sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act are sought to be given notice by a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette of the fact of Special Tribunal or the Special Court taking cognizance of a case to enable them to appear before the Special Tribunal or Special Court and protect their interest in the land, if any-Considering this object of Sections 7-A and 8 of the Act, held that notification or publication of notice of the fact that cognizance of a case has been taken in Andhra Pradesh Gazette as required by the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 7-A and the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 8 and sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7 is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with by the Special Tribunal and the Special Court- If, however, a person who claims title, ownership or lawful possession of any such land is already a party in proceedings under Sections 7-A or 8 of Act in the Special Tribunal or Special Court and he has notice of such proceedings and has had due opportunity to participate in said proceedings and assert his title, ownership or lawful possession over the land, he cannot challenge the proceedings of the Special Tribunal or the Special Court on the ground that notification or the publication of the notice had not been made in accordance with the Act and Rules- Instantly respondents not only had notice of application under Section 7-A of the Act before Special Tribunal but also filed their replies to the application and got the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their case and had not suffered any prejudice for non-compliance of the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 7-A of the Act or Rule 7 of the Rules- High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing proceedings before Special Tribunal - Impugned orders of High Court set aside and matter remanded to High Court for consideration afresh-Appeals allowed. (Paras 14 to 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issues in consideration in present appeals was whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or Special Court to call for a report of Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a case under the Act, 1982 and whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to publish a notification in Gazette notifying the fact of cognizance of a case under Act

       Findings of the Court :

        The Court Held that report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, is to be based on Government records and on proof of possession, ownership and use of land and payment of dues to Government and/or local inspection. Where an applicant before the Special Tribunal or the Special Court furnishes certified copies of Government records to show proof of possession, ownership and use of the land and also payment of dues to the Government, in support of the statements made in the application and the Special Tribunal or the Special Court is satisfied about the truth of the statements made in the application, it may not be necessary for Special Tribunal or Special Court to refer application to Mandal Revenue Officer for inspection or verification.Moreover, Special Tribunal or Special Court can ascertain the truth or otherwise of the statements made in the application made under Sections 7(1) or 8(1) of the Act on basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced before it.Apart from that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to trials, such as examination and cross-examination of witnesses and production and acceptance of documents are also available to Special Court for ascertaining the truth or otherwise of statements made in the application.Object of Rule 6 of Rules is to assist Special Tribunal or Special Court to arrive at a correct decision on the claims and allegations made in the application under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A and sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act to the Special Tribunal or the Special Court and if this very object can be achieved without referring the application of the case to Mandal Revenue Officer, it may not be necessary for Special Tribunal or the Special Court to make a reference to Mandal Revenue Officer .Hence held that there is no compelling duty on Special Tribunal or Special Court to refer the application under Section 7-A (1) or under Section 8 to the Mandal Revenue Officer.

        The Court further held that all persons who may not have been impleaded as a party in applications filed under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A or sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act are sought to be given notice by a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette of the fact of Special Tribunal or the Special Court taking cognizance of a case to enable them to appear before the Special Tribunal or Special Court and protect their interest in the land, if any. Considering this object of Sections 7-A and 8 of the Act, held that notification or publication of notice of the fact that cognizance of a case has been taken in Andhra Pradesh Gazette as required by the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 7-A and the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 8 and sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7 is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with by the Special Tribunal and the Special Court. If, however, a person who claims title, ownership or lawful possession of any such land is already a party in proceedings under Sections 7-A or 8 of Act in the Special Tribunal or Special Court and he has notice of such proceedings and has had due opportunity to participate in said proceedings and assert his title, ownership or lawful possession over the land, he cannot challenge the proceedings of the Special Tribunal or the Special Court on the ground that notification or the publication of the notice had not been made in accordance with the Act and Rules. Instantly respondents not only had notice of application under Section 7-A of the Act before Special Tribunal but also filed their replies to the application and got the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their case and had not suffered any prejudice for non-compliance of the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 7-A of the Act or Rule 7 of the Rules. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing proceedings before Special Tribunal . Impugned orders of High Court was set aside and matter was remanded to High Court for consideration afresh. Appeals were allowed.