M. DURGA SINGH & ORS.versusYADAGIRI & ORS.

                         [2018] 3 S.C.R. 863                               863


                    M. DURGA SINGH & ORS.                                  A
                                   v.
                         YADAGIRI & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2006)
                           APRIL 18, 2018                                  B
       [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
       Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 –
s.8(1) – Land grabbing – Appellant filing a land grabbing case
against respondent under the 1982 Act – Allegation that respondent
                                                                           C
grabbed about 500 sq yards of land owned by appellants – Dismissal
by the Special Court – Appellant had already filed couple of
proceedings alleging encroachment and land grabbing before the
civil court which were also dismissed – Writ petition against the
Special court’s order also dismissed – On appeal, held: Appellants
themselves approached the civil court and now they cannot submit           D
that they approached the wrong forum – If the appellants 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 proceed under the Act and not to
pursue more proceedings – Appellants invited trouble either by
                                                                           E
pursuing the litigation in the wrong forum or by not approaching
the right forum – For this, the appellants are themselves to be blamed
and cannot hide behind the veil of a lack of jurisdiction of the civil
court – Appellants were given a full-fledged hearing by the Special
Court under the Act – Special court held that the appellants failed
to establish that they are the owners of the schedule property; that       F
the respondents had trespassed on the suit property without legal
entitlement, thus, were land grabbers; and that there is no certainty
about the land alleged to have been grabbed by the respondents –
Appellants sought to rely upon a report given by the Local
Commissioner appointed by the civil court which did not indicate
                                                                           G
much – Said report was not proved in evidence before the Special
Court or even in the Suit – Moreso, the Local Commissioner was
not examined with regard to the correctness of the report – Further,
if the submission of the appellants that the suits instituted after 1982
are not maintainable, then even the report of the Local Commissioner
                                                                           H
                                  863
864             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     is without jurisdiction – Thus, Special Court fully justified in
      dismissing the land grabbing case.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5645
      of 2006.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the High Court
B     Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 21808 of
      1994.
            B. H. Marlapally, Sr. Adv., Apoorv Shukla, V. Sriidhar Reddy, Ajit
      Wagh, Aditya Gaggar, V. N. Raghupathy, M. Kishan Singh, Advs. for
      the Appellants.
C
             B. Adinarayana, Sr. Adv., M. Srinivas R. Rao, Arun Devdas,
      Sharvanth, Goli Ramakrishna, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, V. G. Pragasam, G.
      Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Ms. Filza Moonis, Bharat
      J. Joshi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi (for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law
      Associates), Advs. for the Respondent.
D
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             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.
E
              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
      approximating acres 0-34 guntas. The appellants claims to be the owners
      of the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbers
F
      who are liable to be evicted.
              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
G     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 29th 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.
H
                   M. DURGA SINGH v. YADAGIRI                                  865
                      [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

It is important to note that one of the findings given by the Trial Court in   A
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 18th
October, 1979. As a result of the compromise, the respondents paid an          B
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
      “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      D
      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          E
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        F
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
                                                                               G
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:
                                                                               H
866             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E



             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
F     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 contention urged by the appellants was that the respondents
      had grabbed about 500 square yards of land owned by the appellants in
G     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
H     12th December, 2002.
                       M. DURGA SINGH v. YADAGIRI                               867
                          [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

        12. Learned counsel for the appellants urged before us that the         A
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
                                                                                B
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          C
suits and 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              D
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         E
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      F
            property?
        2. Whether the respondents are not land grabbers within the
            meaning of Act No. 12 of 1982
        3. To what relief.
                                                                                G
        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?
1
    (1955) 1 SCR 117                                                            H
868             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            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.
B
              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
C     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:
D




E




F



             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
G
      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 17th
H
                   M. DURGA SINGH v. YADAGIRI                                     869
                      [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

October, 1993 and was marked as Exhibit A-42. The report indicates                A
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
                                                                                  B
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 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          C
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          D
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.
                                                                                  E
Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H