M. Durga Singh vs Yadagiri .

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5645 OF 2006

M. Durga Singh & Ors. ......Appellants

versus

Yadagiri & Ors. ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The tenacity and stamina with which the appellants have been

litigating for decades must be admired, but nothing else. We will

subsequently mention the various proceedings instituted by the appellants

which give us this belief.

2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to 500 square yards in Survey

No.87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadapally Mandal, Hyderabad

District. This area is said to form a part of the total area in Survey No.87

Signature Not Verified approximating acres 0-34 guntas. The appellants claims to be the owners Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.04.18 12:31:30 IST Reason: of the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbers

who are liable to be evicted.

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 1 of 9

3. Suit No.106 of 1967 was filed by the predecessors-in-interest

against the predecessors of the respondents. The litigating parties are

referred, for convenience, as appellants and respondents, regardless of

who their predecessors in interest were. In this suit, a claim was made for

20 square yards of land from Survey No.87. In the paper book, the extent

of land appears at one place to be 33.5 square yards. Be that as it may,

the suit was dismissed on merits by the Trial Court on 29 th March, 1975

and it was held that the appellants had not been able to prove their title to

the suit land and the boundaries had not been specifically stated. It is

important to note that one of the findings given by the Trial Court in the

judgment is that the respondents had a house on the land in dispute.

4. The appellants later filed OS No.1167 of 1975 for removal of

encroachment by the respondents on 79.49 square yards of land. This suit

was compromised between the parties and disposed of on 18 th October,

1979. As a result of the compromise, the respondents paid an amount of

Rs.5887.50 to the appellants, who gave up all their claims to the land in

dispute.

5. On or about 29th June, 1982 the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing

(Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act) came into force. Section 8(1)

of the Act is important and reads as follows:

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 2 of 9

“8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:— (1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;”

6. Notwithstanding the enactment, the appellants filed OS No.991 of

1987 with respect to 139 square yards said to have been grabbed by the

respondents. It was contended before us by learned counsel for the

appellants that the suit filed by the appellants themselves was not

maintainable in the civil court in view of the provisions of the Act. In

any event, the appellants proceeded with the suit which was dismissed in

default on 19th September, 1991. Thereafter, the appellants filed an

application for restoration of the suit but even that application was

dismissed. We were informed that a revision petition was also dismissed.

7. The appellants then filed OS No.1095 of 1993 claiming that they

had an apprehension that the respondents would encroach upon an area of

369 square yards. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court by a

judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2002.

8. It is recorded in the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court

in OS No.1095 of 1993 that the appellants had instituted the following

other proceedings:

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 3 of 9

Criminal complaint Uda Singh Dismissed on CC 754/67 City Vs 10.6.68 Magistrate Mallesham OS 106/67 on the Shambu Singh Permanent Dismissed with file of IV Asst. Vs. injunction area of costs 29.3.75 Judge, CCC Hyd. Mallesham land 33.5 sq.ys in S.No.87 Chikkadpally A.S.83/75 Appeal -do- -do- Dismissed on 12.10.76 O.S.1167/75 on the Uda Singh Possession of land Ended in file of VII Asst. Vs. 78.49 sq.yds compromise. Suit Judge, CCC Hyd. Mallesham dismissed on 18.10.79. Possession of defts. Admitted. Existing structure not to be Disturbed. OS 677/80 on the B. Anantha Laxmi For perpetual Dismissed on file of IV Asst. And injunction 27.10.84 Judge, CCC Hyd. P. Mallesham regarding the Open land falling to the north of building of Mallesham OP 227/20 V Addl. Shambu Singh Recovery of land Petition dismissed Judge, CCC And 128 sq. Ys. on 16.3.87 Hyd. Mallesham OS 991/87 on the -do- Recovery of 139 Dismissed on file of III Asst. Sq. Ys. in S.No.87 19.9.91 Judge, CCC Hyd. Lingampally Village IA 239/92 in OS For restoration Dismissed on 991/87 17.9.93

9. We may mention that the record of the appeal before us shows that

a couple of other proceedings were also instituted by the appellants

confirming their status as chronic litigants.

10. Eventually, the appellants preferred Land Grabbing Case No. 17 of

1993 before the Special Court established under the Act. In this case the

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 4 of 9 contention urged by the appellants was that the respondents had grabbed

about 500 square yards of land owned by the appellants in Survey No.87.

The proceedings before the Special Court were dismissed by a judgment

and order dated 11th October, 1994.

11. Thereafter, the appellants preferred a writ petition in the Andhra

Pradesh High Court being Writ Petition No.21808 of 1994. This writ

petition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated

12th December, 2002.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants urged before us that the

proceedings instituted by the appellants before the civil court after 1982

were not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Act and the decree

passed by the civil court was a nullity. Therefore, nothing prohibited the

appellants from approaching the Special Court under the Act. Reliance

was placed on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan1. It is not necessary to

delve into this issue.

13. We can only say that the appellants themselves approached the

civil court and it is now too late for them to contend that they approached

the wrong forum. If the appellants honestly believed that the civil court

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by them, then the

proper course of action would have been to withdraw the suits and

1 (1955) 1 SCR 117

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 5 of 9 proceed under the Act. Instead, as far as OS No. 991 of 1987 is

concerned, after the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, the

appellants preferred an application for restoration which was dismissed as

also perhaps a revision petition. At least at that point of time, wisdom

should have dawned upon the appellants that the civil court had no

jurisdiction in the matter but quite to the contrary, they proceeded with

the litigation and later instituted some more proceedings in the civil court.

14. It is quite clear to us that whatever be the position in law, the

appellants invited trouble either by pursuing the litigation in the wrong

forum or by not approaching the right forum. For this, the appellants have

only themselves to blame and cannot hide behind the veil of a lack of

jurisdiction of the civil court.

15. That apart, the appellants were given a full-fledged hearing by the

Special Court under the Act in which the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the petitioners are the owners of the petition schedule property?

2. Whether the respondents are not land grabbers within the meaning of Act No. 12 of 1982

3. To what relief.

Additional issue framed on 12.09.1994

Whether the judgments operate as res judicata and whether the applicants are estopped from contending that they are the owners of the schedule property by virtue of the said judgments?

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 6 of 9

16. The Special Court dealt with all these issues and concluded that the

appellants had failed to establish that they are the owners of the schedule

property and there was no material to establish their ownership. It was

also held that the appellants had not been able to show that the

respondents had trespassed on the suit property without legal entitlement

and were therefore land grabbers within the meaning of the Act.

17. What is more serious is that the Special Court concluded that there

is no certainty about the land alleged to have been grabbed by the

respondents. The location of the land was not clear, the area was not

clearly identified, the description of the land was very vague, no

measurements of the land were given and the boundaries of the land were

also not clear.

18. In this regard, our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the

respondents to the description of the land allegedly grabbed by the

respondents as stated in the plaint filed before the Special Court. The

extent of the land is described in the following terms:

11. Extent Land grabbed about 500 sq. yards. of land with structures out of the land 34 guntas in Sy. No. 87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

12. Boundaries North : Petitioner’s Land South : Narayanguda Bridge/Main Road East : Respondents House West : Petitioners House

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 7 of 9

14. Whether there There are pucca house constructed by late P. are any houses Malleshem, husband of respondent No. 1 and or structures on father of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and also the land, to temporary mulgiee of respondents Nos. 6 to whom they 13 constructed by the respondents 1 to 5 belong. How unauthorisedly and illegally.

they were secured and market value of the land

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in the

plaint before the Special Court there is a clear admission by the appellants

that the respondents had a construction on the land in question which

was also a finding given in Suit No. 106 of 1967.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to rely upon a report

given by the Local Commissioner appointed by the civil court in O.S

No.1095 of 1993. The report of the Local Commissioner is dated 17 th

October, 1993 and was marked as Exhibit A-42. The report indicates that

the respondents are in possession of 607 square yards which is about 5

guntas and the appellants are in possession of 3025 square yards which is

about 25 guntas. Essentially, the report of the Local Commissioner does

not show anything more than this. We also find that this report was

exhibited in Suit No.1095 of 1993 but it was not proved in evidence

before the Special Court or even in Suit No.1095 of 1993. The Local

Commissioner was not examined with regard to the correctness or

otherwise of the report. We also find that exhibit A-42 pertains only to

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 8 of 9 139 square yards of the land in question and not 500 square yards. This

is quite apart from the fact that if the contention of the appellants is that

the suits instituted after 1982 are not maintainable, then even the report of

the Local Commissioner is without jurisdiction.

20. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the

Special Court was fully justified in dismissing the land grabbing case

filed by the appellants and the High Court was also justified in dismissing

the writ petition filed by them. We find absolutely no reason to interfere

with the views expressed and accordingly we dismiss the appeal with

costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants for taking several courts for a ride

through continuous and fruitless litigation spanning several decades.

............................................J (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi ; ...........................................J April 18, 2018 (Deepak Gupta)

C.A. No. 5645 of 2006 Page 9 of 9