Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 89 (AP)

Saleema Begam v. Gurujala Balaraj @ Balaiah

2012-01-25

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, V.V.S.RAO

body2012
Judgment :- (G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) In all these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order: W.P.No.19477 of 2010 is filed to set aside order dated 22.7.2010 passed in I.A.No.496 of 2010 and W.P.No.19725 of 2010 is also filed to set aside order dated 22.7.2010 itself passed in I.A.No.497 of 2010 in I.A.No.472 of 2005 in L.G.C.No.178 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court-II, under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘Special Court’). W.P.No.20407 of 2009 is filed for issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities not to interfere with the so-called possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their respective residential houses, situated in Sy.Nos.7 and 8 of Allapur Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, after declaring action of the 1st respondent threatening to evict the petitioners from the property and demolish the residential houses therein without any notice of opportunity on 23-9-2009 as arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(SR) No.100355 of 2009 is filed to set aside judgment dated 27-10-1999 in L.G.C.No.178 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act as arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction. The parties in W.P.Nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010 are common. The 1st petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and W.P.(SR) No.100355 of 2009 is the sole petitioner and the petitioners 2 to 26 therein are the respondents 25 to 49 in W.P.nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010. Further, the petitioners 27, 28, 30 and 31 in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 are not parties in the remaining matters. Further, the respondent No.29 in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 is shown as Shaik Mahtab S/o Mohiuddin, aged 49 years, resident of 14-1-198/B, Allapur Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the respondent No.15 in W.P.Nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010 is shown as Mahtab S/o not known, Major R/o Allapur village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There is no good identity of the persons given in W.P.Nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010. The respondents 1 to 6 and 9 to 24 in W.P.Nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010 are the applicants 1 to 6 and the respondents 1 to 16 in the land grabbing case. There is no good identity of the persons given in W.P.Nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010. The respondents 1 to 6 and 9 to 24 in W.P.Nos.19477 and 19725 of 2010 are the applicants 1 to 6 and the respondents 1 to 16 in the land grabbing case. With regards to the factual background of the present writ petitions, the respondents 1 to 6 filed the land grabbing case under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against the respondents 9 to 24 praying to declare the respondents 9 to 24 as land grabbers of the property scheduled therein and direct them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property to them and also to punish those respondents for grabbing the property, as per law, claiming and alleging as follows: One Gurujala Pochaiah was the protected tenant of Ac.0.38 guntas of land in Sy.No.7 of Allapur village covered by the schedule for which he was issued Certificate under Section 38(E) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act, 1950. Apart from that the said Pochaiah purchased an extent of 7 guntas in Sy.No.8 adjacent to Sy.No.7 of Allapur village from one Syed Shah Alam Quadri, pattadar of it, thereby, he became entitled to an extent of Ac.1-05 guntas in Sy.Nos.7 and 8 of Allapur village. He died in the year 1975 leaving behind him his four sons namely Balraj, Sattaiah, Narasimhulu and Veeraiah. Narasimhulu died unmarried in the year 1987 and Veeraiah was given some other property, thus Balraj and Sattaiah became the owners of the schedule property therein and accordingly they enjoyed the property. Sattaiah died leaving behind his wife and son the respondents 2 and 3 herein and applicants 2 and 3 in the land grabbing case. Further, in April 1994 the respondents in the land grabbing case i.e. the respondents 9 to 24 herein illegally grabbed the entire schedule property and constructed rooms in an extent of about 1500 sq.yards keeping the balance area as vacant. Further, in spite of demands, they refused to vacate the property. Hence the land grabbing case was filed. During the proceedings in the land grabbing case, the 1st respondent herein i.e. the 1st applicant in the land grabbing case died, whereby the respondents 4 to 6 herein were added as the applicants 4 to 6 as his L.Rs. in the land grabbing case. Hence the land grabbing case was filed. During the proceedings in the land grabbing case, the 1st respondent herein i.e. the 1st applicant in the land grabbing case died, whereby the respondents 4 to 6 herein were added as the applicants 4 to 6 as his L.Rs. in the land grabbing case. For the respondents 1 to 6 herein, i.e. the applicants in the land grabbing case, the first of them was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On the consideration of the material available, the Special Court declared the respondents in the land grabbing case/the respondents 9 to 24 herein as the land grabbers of the property imposing a fine of Rs.2000/-against them and further directing them to deliver the vacant possession of the property after duly removing the structures therein within four months of the judgment with a direction to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer to take possession of the property and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the applicants in the land grabbing case (the respondents 1 to 6 herein) in case the respondents in the land grabbing case/i.e. the respondents 9 to 24 herein would fail to comply with the directions made against them. The said judgment dated 27.10.1999 became final. Further one Narayana Rao and 12 others filed W.P.No.6271 of 2002 seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 (officials) in dispossessing them (petitioners therein) from plot Nos.19 and 22, 44, 30, 28, 26, 18 and 23, 43, 24, 11 and 12, 20, 17 and 43 admeasuring 100 sq.yards each in Sy.Nos.7 and 8 of Allapur village as illegal and null and void on the ground that they purchased the plots from one G. Seetharama Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy who inturn purchased the same from Gurajala Narasimha S/o Pochaiah and his brothers on 29.7.1983 and the 2nd respondent therein (RDO, Chevella) tried to take possession of the plots on the premise of implementing the judgment passed by the Special Court in the land grabbing case, which judgment was not binding upon them, because they were not parties to the land grabbing case. The 4th respondent therein i.e. the 4th applicant in the land grabbing case got himself added as such in that writ petition. The 4th respondent therein i.e. the 4th applicant in the land grabbing case got himself added as such in that writ petition. This Court, on the consideration of the available material, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 5.11.2008 holding that the judgment of the Special Court should not be ignored and the 4th respondent and others therein were entitled to implement the judgment of the Special Court. I.A.No.472 of 2005 was filed for the execution of the judgment and decree passed in the land grabbing case (no order in I.A.No.472 of 2005 is filed). I.A.No.497 of 2010 was filed in I.A.No.472 of 2005 by Saleema Begum (writ petitioner in all the writ petitions) and others under Section 9 of the Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking to stay execution of order passed in I.A.No.472 of 2005 which was dismissed in view of the orders passed in I.A.No.496 of 2010 in I.A.No.472 of 2005 holding that it was not maintainable. Further, I.A.No.496 of 2010 was filed in I.A.No.472 of 2005 under Section 9 of the Act read with Order XXI Rules 99, 100 and 101 and Section 151 CPC to determine the rights of the petitioners therein with regards to the property scheduled in the land grabbing case and pass necessary orders. I refer the parties as arrayed in the Interlocutory Application. It is claimed there as follows: They are third parties to the land grabbing case. Under the guise of the judgment and decree passed in the land grabbing case, the respondents 1 to 5 therein (the applicants 1 to 5 in the land grabbing case) are trying to dispossess them from their residential portions existed therein. They purchased the property from the rightful owners of the property namely Gurajala Narasimha, Balaiah, Veeraiah and Sattaiah in the year 1983 after the property was divided into plots. The respondents 6 to 21 are fictitious persons set up by the respondents 1 to 5 in respect of the property. Further on 6.9.2009 the staff of the respondents 22 and 23 threatened the petitioners to demolish the structures existing in the property at the instance of other respondents and when the petitioners resisted, they went away proclaiming that they would come back and carry out their mission. Further on 6.9.2009 the staff of the respondents 22 and 23 threatened the petitioners to demolish the structures existing in the property at the instance of other respondents and when the petitioners resisted, they went away proclaiming that they would come back and carry out their mission. In fact on 10.4.2010 the respondents 22 and 23 got demolished some houses belonging to some of the petitioners without giving any notice to them. The 4th respondent filed counter adopted by the respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 upholding their claim as set out in the land grabbing case. Further, it is pleaded in the counter as follows: The respondents in the land grabbing case refused to receive the notices sent to them and failed to make any representation and ultimately they were called absent and set exparte in the land grabbing case, following which the subsequent proceedings were initiated and disposed of giving directions to the respondents in the land grabbing case to implement the judgment but they failed to obey it. In fact, on the other hand, they defied the authorities who went to the property to implement the directions of the Special Court. Further, the pleas taken by the petitioners in the Interlocutory Application that they got no knowledge about the land grabbing case and the corresponding execution proceedings and they got absolute rights over the schedule property are false. In fact, they being closely related persons to the respondents in the land grabbing case were used to file false petitions. On the consideration of the matter in various angles, the Special Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application holding that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal filed his report under Rule 6(2) of A.P. Land Grabbing Rules noting that the respondents 1 to 16 in the land grabbing case were in the occupation of the schedule property and the land grabbers set up fictitious persons in order to defeat the judgment and decree passed in the land grabbing case, which became final and which should be implemented, being their close relatives making false claim suppressing material facts. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered as to whether the petitioners placed sufficient evidence in order to uphold their claim and whether the Special Court properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and the order impugned is tenable or not. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered as to whether the petitioners placed sufficient evidence in order to uphold their claim and whether the Special Court properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and the order impugned is tenable or not. What is significant here is that the land grabbing case was disposed of on 27.10.1999 i.e. 12 years ago and a notice was issued by the Special Court under Rule 15(2) of the Rules directing the RDO concerned to implement the judgment passed and till the filing of W.P.No.6271 of 2002, no body questioned the judgment and decree passed in the land grabbing case and for the first time, later on the judgment of the Special Court was questioned by different persons in W.P.No.6271 of 2002 and subsequently at a quite belated stage, I.A.No.496 of 2010 was filed before the Special Court, which was dismissed. It is specifically pleaded on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 as follows: Sekhar, the husband of Smt. S. Nagamani, 4th petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and WP(SR) No.00355 of 2009 is the 3rd respondent in the land grabbing case. Similarly, Mohd. Sharfuddin 6th petitioner in W.P.No.6271 of 2002 is the 6th petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and W.P.(SR) No.100355 of 2009, the 7th petitioner, in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and WP(SR) No.100355 of 2009 Smt. Naseem Bahnu is the 4th petitioner in W.P.No.6271 of 2002, the husband of the 8th petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and W.P.(SR) No.100355 of 2009 (Smt. Shareefa Begum) namely Sri Samad is the 8th respondent in the land grabbing case, the 10th petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and WP (SR) No.100355 of 2009 Shaik Mahamood is the 6th respondent in the land grabbing case and 11th petitioner in W.P.No.6271 of 2002 and his so-called vendor Beerappa is the 4th respondent in the land grabbing case, the 12th petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and WP (SR) No.100355 of 2009 namely Smt. Veera Bai is the 5th petitioner in W.P.No.6271 of 2002, the husband of the 17th petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and WP (SR) No.100355 of 2009 namely Shaik Moulana is the 9th respondent in the land grabbing case, the 18th petitioner Mohd. Shaik Osman’s so-called vendors vendor Smt. Nagamani’s husband Sri Sekhar is the 3rd respondent in the land grabbing case, Manwar Singh 15th respondent in the land grabbing case is the vendor of the 23rd petitioner in W.P.No.20407 of 2009 and WP (SR) No.100355 of 2009, Smt. Sunitha Bai W/o Manwar Singh is the 8th petitioner in W.P.No.6271 of 2002 and the vendor of the 24th petitioner Smt. Sultana Begum namely Smt. Fatima Begum is the 1st respondent in the land grabbing case. No dispute is raised about these facts which thereby are accepted to be true and correct. It is something inconceivable that being close relatives of the parties in the earlier cases, the petitioners got no knowledge about the land grabbing case and also the consequential execution proceedings. But emphatically they kept quite for more than a decade before filing the Interlocutory Application without taking any measures against the judgment and decree passed in the land grabbing case and during that period, the authorities concerned also approached the property and tried to demolish the structures therein for the purpose of implementing the directions of the Special Court as borne out by the record. The circumstances enumerated make it amply clear that the persons declared as land grabbers in the land grabbing case, having failed to see the directions issued by the Special Court were not implemented, got filed the earlier writ petition and as that writ petition was dismissed, got filed the Interlocutory Applications with the help of the petitioners herein having suppressed the real facts. On behalf of the petitioners, no sale deeds or agreements of sale were marked in the case. Therefore, they have not proved their claim of ownership and possession of the property in any case. Even supposing that they purchased the property, they cannot claim or get better title than what their vendors thereunder got and when their vendors were declared as the land grabbers of the property under the decree passed in the land grabbing case, which became final, the decree applies to them also they being the successors of the property under such sale. Apart from that, it is surprising as to how the Interlocutory Application could be filed in the land grabbing case which was long ago disposed of and the decree passed thereunder became final. Apart from that, it is surprising as to how the Interlocutory Application could be filed in the land grabbing case which was long ago disposed of and the decree passed thereunder became final. Further, when the claim of the petitioners is subject to the proof of their title over the property by adducing necessary evidence, the writ petitions are misconceived. Thereby the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. Section 9 of the Act contemplates; “Special Court to have the powers of the Civil Court and the Court of Session: Save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the proceedings before the Special Court and for the purposes of the provisions of the said enactments. Special Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, or as the case may be, a Court of Session and shall have all the powers of Civil Court and a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.” Therefore, from the scheme of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the Rules and Regulations thereunder, it is clear that the provisions of CPC are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of present Act. Eventually, the remedy for the petitioners would be to approach the Special Court for the redressal of their grievances, if any, by filing a case on the original side. Further, Section 8(6) of the Act reads as follows: “Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing, and of the persons who committed such land grabbing and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land”. By virtue of the first proviso to Section 8(6) of the Act, after the land grabbing case was taken cognizance of by the Special Court, a notification was issued by the Court which was published in A.P. Gazette Part II Extraordinary, bearing No.16, Hyderabad dated 12.2.1999. it reads: “Notice is hereby given to whomsoever it may concern including the custodian of evacuee property concerned as required under the first proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P. Act 12 of 1982). If any person intends to object, he may submit his objections if any, before the Special Court on or before the 8th day of March 1999 for its consideration. If no objections are received by the Special Court within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that there are no objections for proceeding further and the case will be proceeded accordingly”. The notification issued in the A.P. Gazette Part II, extraordinary bearing No.16 published on 12.2.1999 is a public notice which equally applies to all those who claim rights over the property against the interest of the respondents 1 to 6. The statutory report as required under Rule 6(2) of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1998 was called for from the MRO, Balanagar Mandal, in whose jurisdiction the application schedule property situated and he gave report which provided that all the respondents in the land grabbing case were in the possession of the property. Further, Section 17 of the Act as amended in the year 1987 envisages: ‘Prohibition of alienation of lands grabbed. Any transaction relating to an alienation of a and grabbed or any part thereof by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructory mortgage or otherwise, or any partition effect or a trust created in respect of such land, which has taken place (whether before or after) the commencement of this Act shall, except to the extent ordered by the Special Court, on (Special Tribunal) be null and void”. As such, any conveyance of the property claimed by the petitioners is null and void only. The basic objective of the Land Grabbing Act is to free the public as well as private land from the clutches of encroachers and unauthorized occupants. The provisions contained therein are required to be interpreted by applying the rule of purposive construction or mischief rule. The basic objective of the Land Grabbing Act is to free the public as well as private land from the clutches of encroachers and unauthorized occupants. The provisions contained therein are required to be interpreted by applying the rule of purposive construction or mischief rule. The Special Court observed in the judgment “In the statement of objects and reasons in the Act, it is clearly mentioned that the land grabbers are setting up fictitious claims and indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land belonging to the Government, private persons etc. It is further stated in the statement of objects and reasons to the above Act that having regard to the resources and influence of the persons by whom the large scale unlawful activity to the land grabbing was, has been or is being organized and carried out in violation of law by them, as land grabbers in the State of A.P. and particularly in urban areas it is necessary to arrest and curb immediately such unlawful activity of land grabbing.” In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others ( 1994 (1) SCC 1 ), the Supreme Court held “Non-disclosure of relevant and material facts by the parties is fraud committed on the Court”. It is further stated in the said decision explaining the meaning of “fraud” that non-disclosure of relevant and material documents and material facts with a view to obtain advantage of the case amounts to fraud that the parties who come to the Court must approach the Court with clean hands and that the property grabbers, tax evaders, band loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. Such a case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. Such a case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. The circumstances enumerated amply establish that the respondents in the land grabbing case in collusion with the petitioners got filed the petition in order to defeat the rights of the respondents 1 to 6 in the property nullifying the effect of the judgment and decree passed in the land grabbing case suppressing the material facts which would amount to committing fraud against not only the respondents 1 to 5, but also against the Court. It is categorical thereby that they approached the Court with unclean hands in order to gain advantage or profit in respect of the property. Indeed, a serious view of the matter is to be taken eventually. The writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only when the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary or illegal or without authority of law, which is not the case here. The Special Court examined the matter in the true spirit of the material available and also in the same lines deliberated above and ultimately the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.