2001 (8) TMI 1333 - SC - Indian Laws

Remedies of review under Section 17-A of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the suit for declaration of title and right - Held that - Appeal allowed. The learned Single Judge ought not to have expressed an, opinion on the merits of the case because after the High Court has put its seal of approval on the judgment and order of the Special Court, the result of the Review Application and the Suit would become a foregone conclusion. Further in regard to the remedy of the Suit, having regard to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Act, no suit for title in respect of the disputed land which is alleged to be a land grabbed by the first appellant, could be entertained by the Civil Court. Thus Writ Petition is restored to the file of the High Court and the case is remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
2. Challenge to the order of the Special Court before the High Court.
3. Review of the Single Judge's decision by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4. Interpretation of provisions related to remedies under Section 17-A of the Act and the suit for declaration of title and right.
5. Transfer of cases to the Special Court and maintainability of suits for declaration of title.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court confirming the Special Court's order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The Special Court found the government as the owner of the disputed land and ordered the respondents to be evicted. However, the Special Court did not issue a notice under the relevant section. The Single Judge upheld the Special Court's decision, stating that there was no lack of jurisdiction, error, or violation of natural justice. The Division Bench also affirmed this decision.

2. Appellants challenged the Special Court's order before the High Court, arguing that they had the right to review under Section 17-A of the Act and to file a suit for declaration of title and right. The Division Bench reiterated the Single Judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the Single Judge should not have expressed an opinion on the case's merits, considering the High Court's approval of the Special Court's decision.

3. The Supreme Court clarified that no suit for title regarding the disputed land could be entertained by the Civil Court under the Act's provisions. Cases pending before any court or authority before the Special Court's establishment were transferred to the Special Court. Therefore, the Division Bench's decision was set aside, and the case was remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

4. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal without expressing an opinion on the case's merits, leaving it open for the parties to raise permissible contentions. Additionally, a writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with each party bearing its costs in the appeal and the writ petition. The judgment emphasized the limitations on suits for declaration of title under the Act's provisions and the transfer of cases to the Special Court for adjudication.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the key legal principles and decisions made by the courts involved in the case.

← Previous Next →