2003 (9) TMI 784 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition - Resumption and regrant of inam land - Jurisdiction of civil courts - land in Tirumala Village - non-fulfillment of grant conditions - 0grants are in favour of the manager and are a gift to the temple - HELD THAT - It is not possible to accept Mr. Mishra submission that this Court should quash the interim orders. Those orders are not before this Court and this Court cannot blindly quash orders passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction without even looking into the orders. Even presuming, without so holding, that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act or on principles of res judicata/estoppel in our view the High Court should have permitted the civil Court, which was competent to decide these questions to do so. At the most the High Court could have directed the civil Court to decide these issues as preliminary issues. In our view the correct course is to set aside the impugned Judgment and direct the civil Court to decide the question of maintainability of the suit in view of Section 14 of the said Act and/or its jurisdiction to entertain the suit as also the question whether the suit is barred by principles of res judicata as preliminary issues. We see no substance in the apprehension that in deciding the preliminary issues the civil Court will not keep in mind Judgments of this Court (set out therein above) pertaining to maintainability of the suit once patta is granted under the said Act. Undoubtedly the civil Court would see whether in effect the suit is for purposes of setting aside or modifying the decisions taken in the earlier round of litigation. It must also be mentioned that during arguments Mr. Venugopal had submitted that the Appellants were considering applying for amendment of the plaint in order to plead fraud. We are sure that if any such application is made the same will be considered on its merits after hearing the other side. It must be mentioned that Mr. Mishra had submitted that by the proposed amendments admissions are sought to be retracted. We see no reason to conclude that the civil Court would permit retraction of admissions. We see no reason to express any opinion on the rival submissions. Were we to express any opinion we would be committing the same mistake that the High Court has committed viz usurping the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide these questions. We therefore express no opinion on merits. In view of what is set out herein above we set aside the impugned Judgment to the extent that it prohibits the civil Court from proceeding with Suit 69 of 1995. We direct the civil Court to frame and decide, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from today, preliminary issues as to maintainability of the suit in view of Section 14 of the said Act and whether the suit is barred on principles of res judicata/estoppel. We are in agreement with the observations of the High Court that grant of Patta to the Respondents was a formality in pursuance of the decisions in the earlier round of litigation. It is only if it is held that the Appellants suit is maintainable and not barred on principles of res judicata/estoppal that the Appellants can be allowed to pursue the appeal. Thus the writ of prohibition preventing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati from proceeding with the appeal preferred by the Appellants against the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in S.R. No. 1/95 dated 9.8.1995 must continue for the present. Those proceedings shall therefore continue to remain stayed till after the final decision on the preliminary issues. If the preliminary issues are finally answered in favour of the Appellants then the writ of prohibition in respect of the appeal shall automatically stand vacated. If however the preliminary issues are finally answered against the Appellants the writ of prohibition shall stand confirmed. These Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Resumption and regrant of inam land.
2. Jurisdiction of civil courts in matters decided under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.
3. Application of res judicata and estoppel principles.
4. Issuance of writs of prohibition against civil and revenue courts.

Summary:

1. Resumption and Regrant of Inam Land:
The dispute concerns 28.58 acres of land in Tirumala Village, originally granted to Sri Tallapaka Annamacharya by Emperor Sri Krishna Devaraya. The T.T.D. sought resumption of the inam land, alleging non-fulfillment of grant conditions. The Revenue Divisional Officer initially ruled in favor of T.T.D., but the Commissioner remitted the matter for fresh inquiry. The Deputy Tahsildar, upon remand, found the land to be inam land in a Ryotwari village and not held by an institution. This finding was upheld by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Commissioner.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:
The T.T.D. filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of the land. The High Court issued writs of prohibition against the civil court and the Revenue Divisional Officer from proceeding with the suit and appeal, respectively, citing the bar of jurisdiction u/s 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The Supreme Court noted that civil courts have jurisdiction only in cases of misrepresentation, fraud, or collusion, and emphasized that civil courts are competent to decide their own jurisdiction and the maintainability of suits.

3. Application of Res Judicata and Estoppel Principles:
The High Court held that the principles of res judicata applied, preventing the T.T.D. from re-litigating issues already decided. The Supreme Court agreed that the civil court should decide on the applicability of res judicata and estoppel as preliminary issues. The Supreme Court directed the civil court to decide these issues expeditiously.

4. Issuance of Writs of Prohibition:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's issuance of writs of prohibition, stating that such writs should be issued only in rare cases where a court acts without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, under an ultra vires law, or in contravention of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment to the extent it prohibited the civil court from proceeding with the suit, directing the civil court to decide preliminary issues of maintainability and jurisdiction. The writ of prohibition against the Revenue Divisional Officer was to continue until the civil court's decision on preliminary issues.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, directing the civil court to decide preliminary issues within six months and maintaining the writ of prohibition against the Revenue Divisional Officer pending the civil court's decision. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →