9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dispute shall be protracted and will never come to an end. 3. These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19962-19963 of 2006, by which the High Court has allowed the said petitions against the Judgment and order of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called, Act 1982 ), dismissing the review application No. 397/2005 in LGC No. 76/1996 and in LGCSR 357/2005. 4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present cases are as under :- (A) V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother (vendors) had a huge chunk of land and a part of it could have been the subject matter of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act 1976). The said vendors entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.01.1976 for selling a part of the land (hereinafter called `suit land') to a cooperative society namely, Gruha Lakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called, the Society ). The vendors, V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother executed a sale deed in favour of A. Sambas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IA No. 518/2002. The Respondents also moved an application to summon the record of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secundrabad, pertaining to the survey of the suit land along with an application for the stay of Execution proceedings. The Special Court vide order dated 7.11.2002 allowed the Execution Application filed by the appellant/applicant but dismissed the application filed by respondents directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to implement the order dated 4.11.1997. (I) The respondents being aggrieved by the common order dated 7.11.2002, filed writ petition nos. 22953 and 23105 of 2002, which were, dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 17.12.2002. (J) In pursuance of the order in Execution Proceedings dated 7.11.2002, the appellants were put into possession of the suit land on 16.12.2002. (K) The respondents being aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 17.12.2002, preferred review petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed by the Court vide order dated 17.11.2003. (L) The respondents filed Review Application no. 397/2005 in LGC No. 76 after an inordinate delay, seeking review of the order dated 4.11.1997. The respondents subsequently filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals deserve to be allowed. 6. Per contra, Sh. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the transfer of land in favour of the appellant/applicant vide registered sale deed dated 21.05.1980 was itself a fraudulent transaction and material in this regard was suppressed from the Special Court while obtaining the orders in their favour. Fraud vitiates everything. The respondents have raised the issue of the identification of the suit land. Thus, the applications filed by the respondents were maintainable and the High Court has rightly reversed the orders passed by the Special Court. The appeals lack merit and no interference is warranted by this Court. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, there is a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/applicant dated 21.05.1980 and there may be an agreement to sell in favour of the society dated 23.01.1976. It is settled legal proposition that an agreement to sell does not create any right, or title in favour of the intending buyer. The Society did not file suit for specific performance against the vendors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or review if before making the review application, the superior court had been moved for getting the self-same relief, for the reason that for the self-same relief two parallel proceedings before the two forums cannot be taken. 10. In State of Maharashtra Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle AIR 1996 SC 3069, this Court held that when a special leave petition from the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by a non-speaking order, the main order was confirmed by the Court. Thereafter, the power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal as it would be deleterious to the judicial discipline . 11. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (1995) 2 Scale 23; Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust Vs. Swami Prakasananda Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3277; K. Ajit Babu Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 473; and Gopabandhu Biswal Vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1872. 12. In Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm Anr. Vs. K. Santhakumaran Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1486, a three Judge Bench of this Court considered the issue afresh and held that filing of the review petition after dismissal of the special leave petition by it against the self- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. 18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that filing of such a review application by the respondents at a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the Court and such an application is not maintainable. Thus, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the review application by the Special Court and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside. 19. So far as the other application filed by the respondents before the Special Court is concerned, it is based on the grounds that earlier judgment and order had been obtained by the appellant/applicant suppressing material facts and the suit land had not been identified properly, and therefore, the judgment of the Special Court duly affirmed by the High Court stood vitiated. Fraud/Misrepresentation: - 20. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal. (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170). 26. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not point out a single document which may reflect that respondents could have any claim on the suit land. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the application at their behest was not maintainable. 31. The issue of mis-representation/fraud, suppression of material fact and identification of land had been in issue in earlier review petitions before the Special Court and in the Writ Petitions before the High Court. In this regard, the Special Court in execution proceedings was fully satisfied regarding the identity of land on the basis of revenue record and came to the conclusion that there was no mis-representation or fraud on the part of the appellant/applicant. The order of the Special Court dated 11th July, 2006 made it clear that all these issues had been agitated in earlier proceedings. The Special Court has held as under: The applicants herein as contended in this L.G.C. have filed IA No.869/2002 for stay of proceedings and IA No. 861/2002 for summoning the record in File No.B/9815/97 from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground of alleged fraud played by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Surveyor. Those petitions were heard at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er any title in favour of the Society. A finding of fact had been recorded in earlier proceedings that the appellant/applicant was in actual physical possession of the land and he was illegally/forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. Forcible dispossession:- 34. Even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly. Thus, a person in illegal occupation of the land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law. (Vide Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 PC 124; Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh Ors. AIR 1968 SC 620; Ram Ratan Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1977 SC 619; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors. AIR 1986 SC 872; and Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Mrs. Shobha Vankat Rao AIR 1989 SC 2097) . 35. In Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh AIR 1995 SC 1377, this Court observed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is based on the principle that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession except against the true owner and purports to protect a person in possession from being dispossessed except in due process of law. 36. Even the State authorities cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. 38. In view of the above factual position, we reach the following conclusions: (i) There has been a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/applicant by the vendors which was registered on 21.5.1980 and he was put in possession. (ii) Prior to the execution of the said sale deed there has been an agreement to sell dated 23.1.1976 in favour of the Society. (iii) In respect of the said agreement to sell the litigation remained pending before the Civil Court but there is nothing on record to show as to what had been its outcome. (iv) An agreement to sell did not confer any right on the Society, though the appellant acquired the title over the suit land by execution and registration of the sale deed dated 21.5.1980. (v) The respondents had not been the members of the Society nor Society made any allotment in their favour. (vi) Before the Special Court, the respondents could not show as under what circumstances they could stake their claim on the suit land and no document worth t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
