9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hers were in possession of the disputed property in their own rights under law and that they were the owners of the disputed property. He also disputed the claim of the appellant that she had purchased the property as per registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969. He alleged that the registered Sale Deed was a fabricated and concocted document and that late Mohd. Hussain was not in a position to sell the property as he was not of sound mind at the relevant time. According to the respondent, the appellant did not have the financial capacity to purchase the house and there was no need for Mohd. Hussain to sell the house. 3. After considering the pleadings in the case and the evidence adduced, the Special Tribunal allowed the application on 13th June, 1997 and directed the respondent to deliver the property to the appellant. In its order dated 13th June, 1997 passed in L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990, the Special Tribunal held that: (a) Mohd. Hussain executed the registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969 in respect of the disputed property in favour of the appellant after receiving the consideration; (b) The appellant is the owner of the disputed property; (c) Mohd. Hussain was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted delivering possession of the property to the appellant. To hold that L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 was maintainable before the Special Tribunal, the High Court relied on Section 2(c) of the Act which states that land includes rights in or over land, benefits to arise out of land and buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The High Court also pointed out that the word `land', as defined in other statutes and as decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court in similar matters, includes super-structure, building etc. unless they are excluded from the definition of `land' by a Special Act. The High Court accepted the contention of the appellant that the Act applies not only to lands but also to lands with building. 6. The above judgment in W.P. No. 35561 of 1998 was accepted by the respondent as it was not challenged by him before any higher forum. Thus, the said judgment became final and binding on the respondent. 7. On the basis of the remand of the matter by the High Court, L.G.A. No. 30 of 1997 was again heard and disposed of by the Special Court on 16th November, 2000. As per the judgment da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the parties, the High Court proceeded to consider the following questions : (i) Whether the property in question is a building or land? and (ii) Whether the Special Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of a house property with its appurtenant open land? 9. In its judgment dated 18th April, 2007, the High Court found that the conclusions reached by the Special Tribunal were well founded upon the oral and documentary evidence, that the Special Court too, on re-appraisal of the evidence, concurred with the conclusions reached by the Special Tribunal and that there were concurrent findings of the Special Tribunal and the Special Court on the contentious issues between the parties. After considering the particulars furnished by the appellant in the different columns of the application filed before the Special Tribunal, the High Court observed that the property in dispute was the house bearing Municipal No. 4-3-65 with its appurtenant open land. Even though the question of jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal to consider and decide the application in L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 had already been considered and decided in the earlier W.P. No. 35561 of 1998, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be considered is whether the High Court was correct in holding that the appellant's application under Section 7-A of the Act was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal "as the property in dispute was a building with its appurtenant land". The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 was enacted to prohibit the activity of land grabbing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to provide for matters connected therewith. As per Section 1(3), the Act applies to all lands situated within the limits of urban agglomeration as defined in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and a Municipality. As per Section 1(3-A), the Act applies also to any other lands situated in such areas as the Government may, by notification, specify. Section 2(e) defines `land grabbing' as hereunder: " `land grabbing' means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "Open land 9341 square feet, Plinth area of the house 1114 square feet. " Against Column 14 relating to summary of claim made and the provision of law under which it is preferred, the entry was as follows: "The house and appurtenant land i.e. house bearing No.4-3-65 corresponding to old No.2-5-256 belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the said house under registered sale deed dated 5.2.1969. The respondent forcibly occupied the house and since then he is in the occupation of the said house and open land. The registered sale deed was attested by the following two witnesses: 1. Syed Afzal, s/o Syed Shabbir Hussain, r/o Adilabad 2. Late Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Abdulla r/o Adilabad. Late Ameerulla Khan was the scribe to the document." It is also to be noted that the registered Sale Deed referred to above was in respect of not only the building but also the courtyard and backyard. From the above-mentioned entries in the application filed by the appellant, it is clear that the subject matter of the dispute was not only the building having plinth area of 1114 sq.ft. but also the open land comprising an area of 9341 sq.ft. In the summary of claim, the appellant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule or principle that the statement of the law by a Bench is considered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the well accepted and desirable practice is that the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench. 17. In Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. Etc. [(1989) 2 SCC 754], (paras 27 and 28), a Constitution Bench of this Court held: "27. What then should be the position in regard to the effect of the law pronounced by a Division Bench in relation to a case realising the same point subsequently before a Division Bench of a smaller number of Judges? There is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the courts sanctified by repeated affirmation over a century of time. It cannot be doubted that in order to promote consistency and certainty in the law laid down by a superior Court, the ideal condition would be that the entire Court should sit in all cases to decide questions of law, and for that reason the Supreme Court of the United States does so. But having regard to the volume of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judges, it was not open to one Division Bench to decide the correctness or otherwise of the views of the other. The principle was reaffirmed in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369 which noted that a Division Bench of two Judges of this Court in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 11 had differed from the view taken by an earlier Division Bench of two Judges in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409 on the point whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be defeated by invoking the defence of executive necessity, and holding that to do so was wholly unacceptable reference was made to the well accepted and desirable practice of the later bench referring the case to a larger Bench when the learned Judges found that the situation called for such reference. 28. We are of opinion that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges, and in order that such decision be binding, it is not necessary that it should be a decision rendered by the Full Court or a Constitution Bench of the Court. ....." In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
