Holding

The State’s claim fails; the title and possession belong to the respondents, the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction, and the High Court’s findings are final.

Summary

The dispute concerned a 3.27‑gunta parcel in Khairatabad village, originally granted to Smt. Prameela Modi by a supplementary Sethwar issued by the Nizam government in 1947 and subsequently confirmed by various revenue authorities. The State of Andhra Pradesh later claimed the land as Government property (Survey No. 116/1) and sought to overturn the title, relying on a new map filed for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 had already determined that the land belonged to the respondents (Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3) and that no grabbing occurred. The Supreme Court held that the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide title and possession, that the High Court’s factual findings could not be revisited under Art. 226, and that the State could not reopen the matter on res judicata and estoppel grounds. Consequently, the State’s claim was rejected and the respondents’ ownership upheld.

Issues considered

The State’s claim that the land is Government property (Survey No. 116/1) versus the respondents’ title under the 1947 supplementary Sethwar (Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3).
Whether the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 has exclusive jurisdiction to determine title, ownership and possession.
Whether the High Court can re‑appreciate evidence and overturn findings of fact in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the State can relitigate the title issue after it has been settled by earlier statutory and judicial determinations (res judicata and estoppel).
The admissibility and relevance of a new map filed for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land titlegovernment landres judicataestoppelspecial court jurisdictionAndhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Actsurvey recordsarticle 226property dispute

Judgment

A STATE OF A.P.
v.
SMT. PRAMEELA MODI AND ORS

OCTOBER 30, 2006

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]

Land-Title to-Sethwar issued in 1947 by erstwhile Nizam Government
showing impugned lands in name of claimant and mutation done in revenue
C records accordingly-Same confirmed in 1964 by Director of Settlements,
Survey and Land Records, in 1968 in a proceeding before Board of Revenue
and by State Government in 1968-Writ petition for implementation of orders
in these proceedings allowed in 1975 and in contempt arising thereform,
State Government gave undertaking to Court in 1997 to implement them-
Town Survey Records in 1976 showed impugned lands as belonging
D Goverment Proceedings against claimant to declare tier encroacher set aside
and permission granted by Survey Settlement and Land Records office for
correction of entries in Town Survey Land register in favour of
claimant-Thereafter, show cause notice issued to claimant for cancellation
of those entries and land grabbing case initiated against them-Both set
aside by High Court-Correctness of- Held-Claimant from inception
E continued to be in possession of impugned lands as owner-As Town Survey
howing impugned land as Government land was prior to undertaking given
by State Government in contempt proceedings, it was impermissible for them
to state that those lands were Government lands. As orders ofNizam authority
were legally binding upon statutory authorities of successive Governments,
F issue could not be reopened either in facts or in law at distance of time-
As issues of location, title, possession and subsequent sales settled long back
by proceedings at various levels including Government, after a long
time, it was not open to Government to re-agitate same issue both on the
principles of res judicata and estoppe/.

G Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 8
and J5-Specia/ Court-Jurisdiction of-Held-As they can play role of
Civil Court and decide disputed question of title and possession, their extent
of jurisdiction was wide-All specific situations envisaged by and under the
Act were triable by them-Condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by
If 822
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI 823
them was that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act of land A
grabbing Civil Courts are barred from t1:ving mailers which fall within
exclusive jurisdiction of these Courts constituted under the Act.

Appeal to Supreme Court-Grounds-Property dispute Sheet anchor of
case projected for first time before Court on basis of physical location of
impugned land and bullressed by a new map-No reason given as to why B
that map was no/ filed before any of Courls below in a liligation five decades
old -Nothing staled as to wherefrom that map originaled-Held-Map was
blatantly false and submissions based thereon rejected especially as the map
was directly contrary to undispuled authenticated site map on record.

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Scope of Findings of fact C
reached by inferior Court/Tribunal as a resull of appreciation of evidence
cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings -High Court in exercise
of its power under Art. 226 cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and
indulge in re-apprecialion or evalualion of evidence.
Respondent No. 1, finding discrepancy in survey numbers assigned to D
the impugned lands, approached authorised department of the then Nizam
Government, who after due enquiry, issued a supplementary sethwar in the
year 1947 whereby those lands were shown in her name and mutation in
revenue records was also done accordingly. This was confirmed in the year
1964 by Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, in 1965 in a E
proceeding before Board of Revenue and also by Government memo in 1968.
Writ petition of respondent No. l for implementation of orders in these
proceedings was allowed by High Court on 28-8-1975. In Contempt case
arising from non-implementation of this order of High Court, appellant-State
Government gave undertaking on 7-2-1997 to implement the orders in
aforesaid proceedings. However, a Gazette Notification of the Town Survey F
Records dated 25.9.1976 showed those lands as belonging to Government But
proceedings against respondent No. 1 under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 to declare her as an encroacher were set aside by
Joint Collector on 28-8-1993, and accordingly permission wan granted by
Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records for correction of entries G
in Towb Survey Land Register in favour of respondent No. 1. However,
thereafter, appellant, on 25-10-2004, issued show cause notice to respondents
for deletion of those entries. Against the show cause notice, respondents filed
writ petitions before High Court, which were allowed. Hence, one of the present
appeals was filed by appellant
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A · Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who are subsequent purchasers of impugned
lands and claiming title through respondent No. 1, applied to District Collector
for 'No Objection Certificate' to enable them to submit building plans to
Municipal Authorities. Rejection of grant of this certificate was set aside by
High Court and Special Leave Petition therefrom was set aside by Supreme
Court. On contempt proceedings being initiated against District Collector,
B the aforesaid certificate was issued, but a Land Grabbing case was initiated
against respondents, and the certificate was made subject to outcome of that
case. However, the Special Court, which tried the land grabbing case dismissed
it on 30-7-2004. Against this, appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court, which was dismissed with direction to them not to interfere with the
C impugned lands. Hence, the other one of the present appeals was filed by
appellant

Appellant contended that (i) as per respondent's own document No. 980
of 1st Farwardi 1355 F(1946) the land in question is situated at 115/2 and
the supplementary Sethwar is as per their own contention was issued for the
D land situated at Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and the respondents have grabbed
the Government land situated at Sy. No. 116/1 (ii) the High Court overlooked
the fact that the respondent is claiming the land in Sy. No. 116/l instead of
Sy. No. 116/2 without even producing the original documents before the
Special Court (iii) the Supplementary Sethwar is not conclusive proof of the
E unless it is implemented and approved by the Ni7.am Jamabandi in Faisal Patti
(iv) the Special Court under Act of 1982 has no jurisdiction to decide the
question of title and ownership.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD 1.1. The evidence adduced by the respondents clearly established
F that the Sarfekhas administration i.e. the former Ni7.am's Government went
into the title of respondent no. 1 and thereafter issued supplementary sethewar
in her favour for an extent of Ac. 3.27 guntas and directed the sub-Division of
Survey No. 116 into Survey Nos. 116/1, 116/2 and 116/3 as back as in the
year 1946, thus patta was granted by Surfekhas authorities in favour of
G respondent no. 1 over an extent of Ac. 2, 21 guntas in Sy. No. 116/2 and Ac.
1.06 guntas in Sy. No. 116/3. Survey No. 116/l alone was treated as
Government land and not Sy. No. 11612 and Sy. No. 116/3. The said order was
also implemented and the mutation was also effected in the revenue records.
Respondent No. 1 thus from the inception continued to be in possession and
enjoyment of Ac. 3.27 guntas in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 as its owner.
H (845-A, B, C, D(
ST ATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI 825

1.2. The Government of A.P. issued Memo No. 1547-Rl/65-27 dated 3rd A
December, 1968 confirming the judgment of the Board of Revenue which is
marked as Ex. B-10. The first respondent filed W.P. No. 4526of1975 before
the High Court of A.P. and the High Court by its order dated 28.8.1975 in
WPMP No. 6897/1975 in WP No. 4526/1975 directed the implementation of
the orders of the Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, the Board
of Revenue and that of the Memo of the Government aforementioned. When B
said orders were not implemented, a Contempt Case CC 44/1976 was filed by
the first respondent wherein an undertaking was given on 7.2.1997 by the
Government stating that respondent No. 1 is being informed that the
supplementary Sethwar of 1356 Fasli was received and steps for the
implementation of the same were being taken and the said mutation would be C
finalized during the Jamabandi. It is seen from the records that the Town
Survey was finalized and published on 25.9.1976 showing the land as
Government land which was prior to the aforesaid proceedings and as such it
is impermissible for the Government to state that the land is Government land
as per Town Survey Records. [846-B, C, DJ
D
1.3. The record of Sarfekhas Secretariat in file 99/1945 of 1356 Fasli
contains the approved plan of Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 ad measuring Ac, 3.27
guntas. Though necessary corrections in the related records were not carried
out, respondent No. 1 continued to be in possession of the land as the owner.
But the said proceedings were taken cognizance by the revenue authorities E
including the Government and the title of respondent No. 1 to the land was
never questioned either by the Government of Hyderabad or Government of
Andhra Pradesh. In view of this, the contention of the appellant that respondent
No. 1 suppressed the sale deed before the Special Court is not correct. Her
title as aforesaid is based on the supplementary Sethwar issued by the
Surfekhas authorities of the erstwhile Nizam Government which was accepted F
by the Survey and Revenue authorities including the Government of A.P. Since
the orders of the Surfekhas authority are legally binding upon the statutory
authorities of the successive Governments, i.e. the Government of Hyderabad
and later Government of A.P. the issue cannot, therefore, be reopened either
in facts or in law at this distance of time. [845-G, H, 846-A, BJ
G
Ameer-un-Nissa Begum & Ors. v. Mahboob Begum & Ors., AIR (1955)
. SC 352 and Rajah S. V. Jagannath Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR
(1962) SC 141, referred to.

2. There is no allegation much less any proof that the respondents have H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A taken possession illegally and fully knowing that they were acting illegally
while taking possession; There is also no allegation on any of the respondents
unauthorisedly snatching the land belonging to the Government. On the other
hand, the Special Court on an analysis of the evidence held that the State has
failed to establish that the land in possession of the respondent forms part of
B Survey No. 116/1 and on the other hand the application schedule property is
located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and that the first respondent is the
owner of the property in dispute and is in possession of the said property as
owner. It is also not the case of the appellant that the Special Court has eit>her
acted an evidence, which is legally inadmissible or has refused to admit
admissible evidence. (844-G, H; 845-AI
c 3. The High Court and the Special Court have also rightly concluded
that the land in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is not Government land after perusing
both oral and documentary evidence and rightly dismissed the petition filed
by the State by holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record
and further holding that the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or
D Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings and by holding that the High Court in exercise
of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot convert itself
into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of the
evidence. (847-C, D, Ef
E 4. The sheet anchor of the case of the appellant projected for the first
time before this Court and not urged before any Courts below is the physical
location of the land in dispute which is buttressed by a new mop filed for the
first time before this Court to bolster up the said new false plea set up for the
first time. No reasons whatsoever have been given as to why the said map was
F not filed before any of the Courts below in a litigation which is five decades
old Nothing is stated as to wherefrom the said site map has originated and on
what survey and land record it is based. The said map is directly contrary to
the undis1mted authenticated site map issued by the Collector himself which '
was Ex. B-12 before the trial Court. A true copy of which is also annexed to
the Special Leave Petition. A perusal of Ex. B-12 shows that Survey Nos. 116/
G 2 and 116/3 in respect of which patta was admittedly granted in favour of the
first respondent is at the same very place where for the first time now it is .,;
being projected before this Court as Survey No. 116/1. Ex. B-12 and its
veracity issued by the Collector himself has not been challenged at any time
before any of the Courts below during the last SO years of litigation. It may
H surprise one's understanding as to how a new survey number can be projected
ST ATE OF A.I'. v. PRAMEELA MODI 827
by filing a new map for the first time in the place where survey Nos. 116/2 A
and 116/3 are is shown situated Absolutely no re.isons were given for filing
of the said new map showing different survey numbers contrary to the survey
numbers as in Ex. B-12. In fact there are number of exhibits certified by the
Collector himself which show Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 situate at the very
site where now Survey No. 11611 is alleged to be situated. In fact Ex. B-12
issued by the office of the Collector showing Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 B
abutting the main road has been drawn from the village map as existing in
the revenue records. A perusal of the said village map annexed as Annexure
to the S.L.P. also shows that Survey Nos. 116/2and116/3 are situated at the
very same place where for the first time now it is being projected that Survey
No. 116/1 is situated. (843-F, G, H; 844-A, B, C, DI C
5.1. The Special Court can play the role of a Civil Court and decide the
disputed question of the title and possession. The extent of jurisdiction as is
permitted by the statute, therefore, is rather wide in its application. All the
specific situations as envisaged by and under the Statute would be triable in
the Special Court. The condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by the D
Special Court is that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act of land
grabbing and a District Judge while acting as a Special Court merely acts as
a Presiding Officer of the Court. Having regard to the provisions of Section
8(2) read with Section 15 of the Act, no suit for title in respect of the disputed
land which was alleged to be grabbed by the party could be entertained by the E
Civil Court. In other words, the Civil Court is barred from trying the matters
which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted
under the Act. (840-E, F, G; 841-A-B(

5.2. Thus it is seen that the Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to
try the matters with respect to the ownership, title and lawful possession. F
[841-D,EI
5.3. In the application filed before the Special Court by the appellant,
the prayer (a) was to declare the applicant (State of A.P.) as owner of the
Application Schedule land and to declare the respondents as land grabbers.
In the Concise Statement, it has been averred that the Special Court always
got jurisdiction to decide all questions relating to title and other incidental G
questions including the other questions that may arise or fall under the
jurisdiction of some other forum in order to give reliefs. It is also further
stated in the concluding portion of the Concise Statement that no civil Suit is
pending before any Civil Court pertaining to the application schedule land
(841-E, FJ H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 6.1. It is clear that long back the issues of location of the scheduled
property, the title of the first respondent, her long standing possession and
subsequent sales made by her were settled once of all as evidenced by the
proceedings at various levels including the Government Therefore, after such
a long time, it is not open to the government to re-agitate the same issue both
on the principles of resjudicata and estoppel. (846-H, 847-A(
B
6.2. The matters which were concluded by the decisions of the competent
statutory authorities cannot be re-opened and a citizen cannot be subjected to
such repeated litigation. Therefore, the issue about the physical location
raised by the government, for the first time before this Court, by filing a
C fabricated and unauthenticated sketch which has no basis whatsoever, with
regard to the location of the land belonging to respondent No. t. (847-A, BJ

6.3. There is no irregularity and infirmity in the judgment passed by
the High Court as well as the Special Court in rejecting the claim of the
State. The Special Court elaborately considered and concluded the title of the
D property in question in favour of the first respondent. Therefore there is no
scope at all for this Court to interfere with the considered factual findings at
this belated stage. The parties are litigating for the last 50 years and it is
high time that the parties should realize the correct fact situation and close
the tis once and for all. (848-A, BJ

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4604 of2006.

From the final Common Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2005 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 20537 and 19552/2004.

A.K. Ganguly, J." Prabhakar, Manoj Saxena, Janjish Kr. Singh, Rahul
F Shukla and T.V. George for the Appellant.

Harish N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, L.N. Rao, Akhil Sibal, H. Venguopal, S.
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan (for Mis Lawyer's Knit & Co.), V.N.
Raghupathy, Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju, V. Sridhar Reddy, R.V. Kameshwaran,
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Venkat Subramaniam T.R., R. Santhan
G Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar and C.S.N.
Mohan Rao for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.
H
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN, .I.] 829

This case has a chequered history. This is the sixth in series of litigation A
between the State of A.P. and the respondents herein. Both parties are in the
legal battle field fighting for the five decades.

The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the State are tell tale.
They are required to be noticed in detail. The !is between the State of A.P.
and the respondents centers around a piece of land admeasuring acres 3-27 B
guntas situated in Khairatabad village in Hyderabad District. As rightly pointed
out by the High Court the dispute that began prior to Hyderabad State
attained its freedom still awaits its final resolution. Brief facts are as follows:-

Survey No.116 of Khairatabad village is admeasuring 55 acres classified
as poramboke sarkari Government land. Prior to sub-division conducted in C
favour of Smt. Prameela Modi, four nos. were sub-divided and assigned
survey nos. :

Sy. No. Extent (Areas)

116/2 Ac. 6.0 I gts Raja Ram Dev D

116/3 Ac. 5.00 gts Moulvi Farhatullah

116/4 Ac. 7.35 gts Pingali Venkat Ram Reddy

116/5 Ac. 6.35 gts Rama Krishna Reddy E
In view of the discrepancy in the survey nos. Smt. Prameela Modi
approached the Sarfekhas Authorities for resolution of the dispute and after
due enquiry, the matter was finally resolved by issuance of a supplementary
sethwar in 1357 Fasli (1947) by which 3 acres of27 guntas out of survey No.
116 was directed to be entered in the name of Smt. Prameela Modi and a map F
was also issued by the Superintendent of Survey to effect necessary entries
in the survey records (Ex. BS and B6). When the sub-division work was
carried out and supplementary sethwar was issued in favour of Smt. Prameela
Modi, the survey nos. assigned to her land was also 116/2 and 116/3. During
the course of mutation in revenue records to overcome the discrepancy which G
has crept due to ignorance of the mutation of sub-division earlier assigned
for Smt. Prameela Modi, the land was assigned survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/
3. The same entries of pahani followed in town survey records which are
marked as Ex. B-19, 20 and 21 and a town survey extract of the year 1994 is
marked as Exh. B-28.
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh
in his proceedings bearing No. Ref. Fl- 18556/64 dated 29.05.1964 had framed
an issue as to where exactly this land is located with reference to the maps
now available. The said issue was answered by the Director of Settlements,
Survey and Land Records in the above referred proceedings which is extracted
hereunder:
B
"The next question is with regard to the location of this number. Here
again it was found that both the land record Officer as well as the
petitioner Mrs. C.L. Modi are agreed upon the general location of this
land, according to the revision survey map. According to both of
them, this land is located along the line with the tank on the south
c and the road leading up to the Rock Castle Hotel on the eastern side.
There is also therefore, no dispute as far as the second issue is
concerned. The Board of Revenue upheld the said orders by judgment
dated 24.04.1965 in Appeal U2/1237/64."

D The Gazette Notification of the Town Survey Record showing Blocks A-
N in Ward No. 89 as Government land whereas the implementation of the
order of the High Court in WP M.P. No. 6897 which is marked as Ex.B-36 was
28.08.1975 which was subsequent to Ex.A-I on the basis of the entries in the
town survey proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act were initiated on
16.11.1991 against Smt. Prameela Modi which were set aside on 28.08.1993 by
E the Joint Collector stating that the land belongs to Smt. Prameela Modi and
that she is not an encroacher. The Joint Collector referred to the history of
the case in this order. The Joint Collector directed Smt. Prameela Modi to
approach the Collector for correction of revenue records including TSLR,
which was ordered by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement on a reference by
F the District Collector. Accordingly, permission was accorded by the
Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records in file No. CSS and LR
Ref. No.P5/3 I6/94 dated 12.05.1994 for the correction of entries in the Town
Survey Land register observing that since the lands under reference are prima
facie patta lands as per survey settlement registers and village registers in
favour of Smt. Prameela Modi before town survey was conducted and
G announced in 1976. The sub-division was carried out in Town Survey records
vide proceedings in file No. GITS/98194 as T.S. No. 311/IA and 3/1/1/B
correlating to Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3. Further, the town survey plans
prepared on 26.05.1994 in pursuance of the corrections carried out in Town
Survey records in 1994 shows the physical location of the land of the first
H respondent with the town survey nos. which tallies exactly with the present
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN. J. ] 831
location. A
Panchanama was conducted vide proceedings in· File No. G./TS/107/94
dated 01.06.1994 by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records and boundaries
of the lands in T.S. Nos. 3/1/IA and 3/1/IB in Block K, Ward No.89, correlating
to Survey No. 116/2 and 116/3 of the Khairatabad village were fixed with
measurements. The extent and location of the lands belonging to 1st respondent B
tallies exactly with the present location.

The allocation of sub-division number SI. No. 116 which consists of
• private lands and also government lands was done by the Survey Officials
connected to the State Government. Right from the year 1945 respondent's
rights over the land in occupation is evident from the copy of the sethwar C
issued by the Sarfekhas authorities the then authorized department to issue
the same. The sethwar clearly indicates that the land in Sy. No.116 was a
compact Block but basing upon the respective recognition of rights of the
private parties over the land in their occupation the Sub Divisional numbers
carried out on 116 only. D
The series of orders more so the proceedings of Director, Settlement
Survey and land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in reference No. Fl/
18556/64 dated 29.05.1964 the issue with regard to the possession of respondent
and the location of the land in the possession of this Respondent was
decided in the presence of the Land Records Assistant. E
On 29.10.1997 the District Collector, Hyderabad, rejected the application
made by the Respondent Nos.2 to 7, who are the subsequent purchasers and
who are claiming title through Smt. Prameela Modi, for grant of No Objection
Certificate in order to enable them to submit building plans to Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad. The rejection memo was set aside by the High F
Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 10159/1998 and the District Collector was
directed to issue No Objection Certificate. The said judgment was confirmed
by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2235/1998. The Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 12103/2000 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated 18.08.2000. G
After the dismissal of S.L.P. on 18.08.2000, the respondent No.7 herein
filed a contempt case being C.C.No. 1061/2001 against the District Collector
for not issuing the No Objection Certificate as directed by the High Court in
W.P.No. 10159/98 as it attained finality with the dismissal of S.L.P. No.12103/
- H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 2000. The State filed Land Grabbing Case against the respondents and issued
No Objection Certificate to the respondents in respect of the subject property,
stating that the same is subject to outcome of the Land Grabbing Case. The
contempt case was closed on 24.01.2002.

Land Grabbing Case LGC I0/2002 filed by the State against the
B Respondents was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2004 with
the following findings:

* The applicant absolutely failed to prove that the application
schedule property is located in Survey No. 116/1.
-
c * The respondents have proved that they are the owners and
pattedars of the land located in survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3.

* The applicant with full knowledge that the respondents are the
absolute owners of the land located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and
1
11613 has filed the application as if the application schedule
property is located in Survey No.116/1.
D
* The application schedule property is located in Sy. Nos. 116/2
and 116/3 and that Mrs. Prameela Modi (predecessor in title of
the petitioner No. I) is the owner of the application schedule
property and she is in possession of the application schedule
property as owner.
E
* In view of the abovesaid discussion, on the I st issue we hold
that the applicant is not the owner of the application schedule
property.

* In view of the abovesaid discussion and in view of our findings
F on issue No. I, on the 2nd issue, we hold the rival title set up
by the respondents is true and valid and binding on the applicant.

* In view of the abovesaid discussions and in view of our findings
on issues I to 3 on the 4th issue, we hold that the Government
recognized the title and interest of the 1st respondent in respect
G of land to an extent of Ac. 3.27 guntas located in Survey Nos.116/
2 and 116/3 more than 33 years ago prior to filing of this L.G.C
and Nizam Government recognized and conferred the title on the
....
respondent in 1357 fasli in respect of an extent of Ac. 3.27
guntas of Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and the same was confirmed

H
by the Board of revenue stating that the Ist respondent is
-
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 833
entitled to Ac. 3.27 gunta in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 including A
the land which the 1st respondent sold in favour of two persons
under registered sale deeds in Fasli 1357, the extent of which
was 11200 sq. yards.

* In the result the application is dismissed.
B
Aggrieved by the order of the special Court, the State filed writ petition
No. 20537 of 2004 before the High Court. The State Government through
Principal Secretary Government of A.P. issued a show cause notice to the
respondents dated 25.10.2004 stating that why the orders of the Commissioner
of Survey and Settlement Land Records in proceedings dated 12.05.1994
issued in BS0-34B(IO) should not be cancelled and the entries made in town C
survey land records be deleted.

Being aggrieved by the issuance of show cause notice, the respondents
filed Writ Petition No. 20642 of 2004 before the High Court. Some of the
respondents filed Writ Petition No. 19552 of 2004 praying inter alia for a D
declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 not to dis-possess the writ
petitioners with aid of police from the property in survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/
3 is illegal. By the impugned order dated 26.04.2005 the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. The Division Bench
has allowed the Writ Petition No. 19552 of2004 and directed the Government
not to interfere with the land in question and dismissed Writ Petition No. E
20537 of 2004 filed by the State of A.P. Hence, the above two appeals.

We have heard Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. L.N. Rao learned
senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the respective respondents. F
Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
took us through the relevant records and also of the various proceedings and
the judgments. According to Mr. Ganguly, the High Court has failed to
appreciate that as per their own document No. 980 oflst Farwardi 1355 F(l 946)
the land in question is situated at 115/2 and the supplementary Sethwar is as G
per their own contention was issued for the land situated at Sy. Nos. 116/2
and 116/3 and the respondents have grabbed the Government land situated
at Sy. No. 116/1. He further contended that the supplementary Sethwar is not
conclusive proof of title unless it is implemented and approved by the Nizam
Jamabandi in Faisal Patti. According to him, the High Court has failed to H
appreciate that the lands in question are government lands and the respondents
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A do not have any title over the lands in question and that the respondents
have played fraud upon the courts by not producing the alleged supplementary
Sethwar, the plan which as it transpires now, was never authenticated by the
concerned Deputy Director of Survey & Land Records who is the custodian
of the same on the fact of it. He further submitted that the originals in respect
B of these documents are not available with the office of the Deputy Director
of Survey & Land Records, casting any amount of doubt on the veracity and
genuineness of these documents. He further submitted that the High Court
has failed to appreciate that the respondents concealed the fact before the
Special Court and did not produce the sale deed even when the appellant
herein filed the sale deed by way of additional affidavit, the High Court did
C not consider the same and passed the erroneous order. It was further submitted
that the appellant has produced prima facie evidence on record to establish
that Khasra Pahanis and Town Survey records to prove that the land in
question in S.No.116/l is a Government land and that the High Court has
grossly overlooked the fact that the respondent is claiming the land in Sy. No.
D 116/1 instead of Sy. No. 116/2 without even producing the original documents
before the Special Court. According to him, the High Court ought to have
appointed a Court Commissioner duly assisted by the officer of survey
department to determine the exact location of the land being claimed by
respondent No. I and rest of the respondents without which the High Court
cannot arrive at a conclusion as to the location of the property in dispute.
E He also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 14 of the A.P.
Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 and also the judgment of this court in N.
Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)
Act & Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 214. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Ganguly
submitted that the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are
F contrary to the principles laid down by this Court and the same are
unsustainable in law and facts.

Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
while replying to the arguments of learned senior counsel for the appellant
first invited our attention to the proceeding of the Director of Settlements,
G Survey & Land Records, Board of Revenue, A.P. Hyderabad dated 29.5.1964.
We have carefully perused the same. He placed before us three maps on
record namely of the year 1946 which is appended to Sethwar itself(page 65
of Vol.II), 1978 map by Survey Department and in this regard he invited our
attention to pages 103 & 104 of Vol.II. M.C. Inspector. Hyderabad Urban Taluk
H to the Collector Land Records, Hyderabad - District by his letter dated
2.1.1976 addressed to the Collector Land Records Hyderabad informing the
STA TE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 835
Collector as under: A
... '
"With the help of the plans available in the file, S. Nos.116/2 and
116/3 have been inspected and boundaries, have been demarcated on
the site, in presence of the representative of the party. No one has
seen the demarcation, of the land in question. The said representative
has also given in writing that he was present at the time of demarcation, B
and he has seen all the boundaries.

The statements of the representative along with the authorization
letter of Dr. C.L. Modi the petitioner, are submitted herewith for perusal
and necessary action."
c
Map issued in the year 1978 by the authorities is available at page I04
of Vol.II. The third map was issued in the year 1994 by the Town survey which

- is at page 133 of Vol.II. A map dated 21.7.2005 signed by the Dy. Director,
Survey and Land Record Records, Hyderbad was placed by Mr. Ganguly. We
have perused the said plan placed before us at the time of hearing. The said
plan is incomplete in regard to all other maps which were placed by the D
concerned authorities and also before the High Court. We cannot, therefore,
give any credence to the map which was placed before us after the High Court
judgment.

Mr. R.F. Nariman then drew our attention to the Andhra Pradesh Survey
& Boundaries Act, 1923 and in particular, Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of
E
the Act reads thus:

"9. Power of survey officer to determine and record an undisputed
boundary:- (I) The survey officer shall have power to detennine and
record undisputed any boundary in respect of which no dispute is
F
brought to his notice.

(2) Notice to registered holders of lands affected:- Notice of every
decision of the survey officer under section 9(1) shall be given in the
prescribed manner to the registered holders of the lands the boundaries
of which may be affected by the decisions." G
The submission of Mr. Nariman was not controverted by learned senior
.... counsel appearing for the appellant.

Our attention was drawn to the proceedings of the Commissioner of
Survey Settlement and Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad dated 12.5.1994 with H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A regard to the correction of Town Survey Records in respect of 116/1, 116/2
and 116/3 of Khairatabad village which is corrected to Town Survey No. 3/
I/Block - K, Ward-18. It is useful to reproduce few paragraphs in the concluding
part of the said order:

"That in the first instance the D.O.S. Hyderabad in his Fl/18556/
B 64 m Dt. 29-05-64 confirmed the entries of the supplementary Sethwar
issued in F.1357 (1947) by the Surfekhas authorities. The sane orders
D.O.S. Hyderabad dated 29.05.1964 were confirmed Erstwhile Board of
Revenue in 02/237/64 Dt. 24.04.65 and also the Government in the
Memo No. 1547/Rl/65 Dt. 27, Dt. 3.12.68. The Joint Collector in his
order F4/9232/91 Dt.28.8.93 endorsed for correction of town surveyor
c crept in during town survey conducted and announced in the year
1976. Further the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in W.P.M.P
No. 6897175 in W.P.M.P. No. 4526175 Dt.28.08.75 directed the Revenue
authorities to implement of the order of Revenue authorities who
confirmed the supplementary Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas
D authorities.

As such the Collector Hyderabad incorporated the entries of
supplementary Sethwar in the village by the Pahanies of 1980-81 but
the entries in the town survey registers have not been corrected.

E Since the land under reference are prima facie patta lands as per
survey settlement registers and village registers in favour of Smt.
Pramila Modi before town survey conducted and announced in 1976.
The collector Hyderabad submitted the present proposals for correction
of classification which was wrongly entered in town survey registers
under B.S.O 34-8(10).
F
When the matter has been referred to the Director Survey
Settlement and Land Records Hyderabad, the Deputy Director H.Qs
stated that the correction proposals sent by the collector Hyderabad
have been technically scrutinized and are found in order, that the
detailed town survey of Hyderabad city was conducted under the
G provisions of A.P.S.B Act, 1923 and has been validated 13 of
A.P.S.B Act, that the corrections can be carried out only under the
provisions of B.S.O 3-4-B (JO)."

In the circumstances reported by the Collector Hyderabad and as
his proposals are found correct on technical scrutiny by the Head Qrs.
H
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN,J.) 837
Deputy Director of L.C.S.Officer, the Commissioner, Survey Settlement A
A.P. Hyderabad agrees with him and permit the Collector, Hyderabad
under Rule 8 0 34-B (I 0) to correct the town survey records as
proposed by him. "

He also invited our attention to the show cause notice dated 25.10.2004
by the Government of A.P., Revenue Department calling upon Smt. Prameela B
Modi & Ors. to show cause why the order of Commissioner of Survey and
Settlement and Land Records in proceedings dated 12.5.1994 under BSO 34-
B-10 should not be cancelled and to delete the entries made in Town Survey
Records No. 3/1/1 ofBlock- K Ward No. 89 ofKhairatabad village in pursuance
of the said order to submit their explanation. It was submitted that this notice C
was challenged by the !st respondent herein in W.P.No. 20642 of 2004 and
the High Court has entertained the same and is pending. The High court has
also granted the stay of the proceedings.

Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 has no D
jurisdiction to decide the question of title and ownership.

This submission was controverted by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents by inviting our attention to Section
8 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Section 8 of the said Act
reads as follows: E
"8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:- (1) The Special
Court may, either suo moto 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 land grabbed, whether before F
or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including
orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;

{xxxxx}

(I-A) The Special Court shall, for the purpose of taking cognizance G
of the case, consider the location, or extent or value of the land
.J
alleged to have been grabbed or of the substantial nature of the evil
involved or in the interest of justice required or any other relevant
matter;

Provided that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any such H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A case without hearing the Petitioner.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) or in the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Courts Act, 1972, any case in respect of an alleged act of land
grabbing or the determination of question of title and ownership to,
B or lawful possession of any land grabbed under this Act, shall be
triable only in a Special Court constituted for the area in which· the
land grabbed is situated; and the decision of the Special Court shall
be final.

(2-A) If the Special Court is of the opinion that any case brought
C before it, is not a fit case to be taken cognizance of, it may return the
same for presentation before the Special Tribunal:

Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Court, any application
filed before it, is prima facie frivolous or vexatious, it shall reject the
same without any further enquiry:
-
D
Provided further that if on an application from an interested person
to withdraw and try a case pending before any Special Tribunal the
Special Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to be withdrawn and
tried by it, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing withdraw any
such case from such Special Tribunal and shall deal with it as if the
E case was originally instituted before the Special Court.

(2-B) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to try all offences punishable
under this Act.

F (2-C) The Special Court shall determine the order in which the civil
and criminal liability against a land grabber be initiated. It shall be
within the discretion of the Special Court whether or not to deliver its
decision or order until both civil and criminal proceedings are
completed. The evidence admitted during the criminal proceeding may
be made use of while trying the civil liability. But additional evidence,
G if any, adduced in the civil proceedings shall not be considered by the
Special Court while determining the criminal liability. Any person
accused of land grabbing or the abetment thereof before the Special
Court shall be competent witness for the defence and may give
evidence or oath in disproof of the charge made against him or any
H person charged together with him in the criminal proceedings:
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN,J. ] 839

Provided that he shall not be called as a witness except on his own A
request in writing or his failure to give evidence shall be made the
subject of any comment by any parties or the Special Court or give
to any presumption against himself or any person charged together
with him at the same proceeding.

3.(xxx) B
4{xxx)

5.(xxx)

6. Every finding of the Si:iecial Court with regard to any alleged act
of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing C
and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every
judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title
and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be
binding on all persons having interest in such land.

Provided that the Special court shall, by notification, specify the fact D
of taking cognizance of the case under this Act. Such notification,
.> shall state that any objection which may be received by the Special
Court from any person including the custodian of evacuee property
within the period specified herein will be considered by it:

Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee property objects E
to the Special Court taking cognizance of the case, the Special Court
shall not proceed further with the case in regard to such property;

Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice of taking
cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known F
or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquiry to
satisfy itself about the persons likely to be interested in the land.

7.(xxx)

8. Any case, pending before any Court or other authority immediately
before the Constitution of a Special Court, as would have been within G
the jurisdiction of such Special Court, shall stand transferred to the
Special Court (xxx) as if the cause of action on which such suit or
proceedings is based and arisen after the Constitution of the Special
Court."
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Section 8(1) authorizes the Special Court 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 land grabbed,
whether before or after the commencement of the Act and pass such orders
as it deems fit.
B
Section 8(2) states that the Special Court determines the question of
title and ownership to, or lawful possession of any land grabbed under this
Act and that the same shall be triable only in a Special Court constituted for
the area in which the land grabbed is situated; and the decision of the Special
C Court shall be final.
Section 8(6) states that every finding of the Special Court with regard
to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of
land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, _nd
every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title
D and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding
on all persons having interest in such land.

It is thus seen that the Special Court can play the role of a Civil Court
and decide the disputed question of title and possession. The extent of
jurisdiction as is permitted by the statute, therefore, is rather wide in its
E application. Three specific situations have been noted namely,

(i) Jurisdiction can be had in regard to a case in respect of an
alleged act of land grabbing
(ii) Jurisdiction can be had in a case where determination of
question of title and ownership are involved and
F
(iii) Jurisdiction can be had where lawful possession of any land
grabbed under the Act is involved.

All these three specific situations as envisaged by and under the Statute
would be triable in the Special Court. The condition precedent for assuming
G jurisdiction by the Special Court is that the case must have arisen out of any
alleged act of land grabbing and a District Judge while acting as a Special
Court merely acts as a Presiding Officer of the Court. Having regard to the
provisions of Section 8(2) read with Section 15 of the Act, no suit for title
in respect of the disputed land which was alleged to be grabbed by the party
H could be entertained by the Civil Court. In other words, the Civil Court is
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKS!-IMANAN, .l.] 84)

barred from trying the matters which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of A
the Special Court constituted under the Act.

The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Andhra Pradesh
Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply
to the proceedings before the Special Court and for the purposes of the
provisions of the said enactments, Special Court shall be deemed to be a Civil B
Court under Section 9.

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force
or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court or any other
tribunal or authority. C
Thus it is seen that the arguments advanced by Mr. A.K. Ganguly are
totally contradictory to the above provisions of the Act and that Special
Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the matters with respect to the ownership,
title and lawful possession. D
Our attention was also drawn to the application filed before the Special
Court by the State of A.P. The prayer (a) was to declare the applicant (State
of A.P.) as owner of the Application Schedule land and to declare the
respondents as land grabbers. In the Concise Statement, it has been averred
that the Special Court always got jurisdiction to decide all questions relating E
to title and other incidental questions including the other questions that may
arise or falls under the jurisdiction of some other forum in order to give reliefs.
It is also further stated in the concluding portion of the Concise Statement
that no civil Suit pending before any Civil Court pertaining to .the application
schedule land. The Special Court on the pleadings in the application framed
certain issues which included Issue Nos. 1 & 4 which relate to the State's F
ownership of the application Schedule property and as to whether the
Government itself recognized the title and interest of respondent No. I in
respect of application schedule property and as such the said application is
not maintainable. The Special Court in its detailed and well considered order
categorically held that the first respondent herein proved her title and G
possession under Ex. 85 as early as in 1357 Fasli (1946) and when the first
respondent was entitled to an extent of Acre 3.27 guntas in Sy. Nos. 116/2
and 116/3 of Khairtabad village, merely because, there is an entry in the
Khasra Phani for the year 1954-55 (Ex. A5) does not affect the right, title of
•• respondent No. I in the land located in Sy. Nos.- 116/2 and 116/3 .
H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel also advanced similar
arguments and also invited our attention to the judgment of the Special Court.
Relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

"The title of the Ist respondent was decided and also it was
decided that the !st respondent is entitled to Ac. J.27 guntas in Sy.
B Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 by various government departments including
the Board of Revenue and the govern.men! of A.P., dated 03. 12.1968.
The collector is not competent to question the various orders passed
by the Director, Settlement and Land Records, the Board of Revenue
and the government. The High Court also directed to implement the
orders of the Board of Revenue dated 24.04.1965. In the Contempt
c petition the applicant herein undertook to implement the orders of the
Board of Revenue. Ex.BJ sketch prepared dated 26.05. I994 whereas,
in Ex. AJ is the sketch copy ofTSLR in Ex.B3, the two survey No.3/
1/1/A and 3/1/1/B whereas in Ex. A3 IIA and 1/8 were erased at 4
places in Ex.A3. The applicant did not approach the court with clean
D hands the applicant has no respect for truth in filing Ex.A3 erasing II
A and l /B at 4 places in Ex.A3, Ex.BI is the certified copy of TSLR
wherein the TSLR was corrected and issued a copy of the same to the
!st respondent. Ex.Bl2 is the sketch prepared in 1971,wherein it is
specifically mentioned Sy.No.116/1 is beyond the road. The Sy. Nos.
I 16/ 1 is on the north of the road and whereas Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/
E 3 as shown in Ex.Bl2. The applicant absolutely failed to prove that
the properly located Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is in 116/1, which is on
the north of the road as shown in Ex. B.12, Ex. 812 was prepared by
the Inspector of Survey and land Records and in pursuance of the
orders of Ex.BJ was prepared and issued by the government authorities.
F Ex.AJ is also prepared by the government authorities. The applicant
absolutely failed to prove that the respondents grabbed an extent of
14869 sq.mtrs. located in T.S.No.3/1 corresponding to Sy. No.116/1.
The respondents, specifically, the Ist respondent is the absolute
owner and pattedar of the land located in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 as
shown in Ex. B3 as shown in T.S.No. 3/1/IA and 3/1/IB.
G
The applicant did not take any steps to localize the land in Sy.
No.116/1. The !st respondent did not grab any land located in Sy.
No.116/1. The applicant has no right, title to in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/
3 i.e. in T.S. Nos. 3/1/IA and 3/1/18. The applicant has not come to
the court with clean hands erasing the T.S.No. l/A and I/Bat 4 places
H
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN . .I.] 843
ir. Ex. A3 which amounts to production of false document in a judicial A
proceeding. The applicant absolutely failed to prove that the
application schedule property is located in Sy. No.116/1. The
respondents proved that the application schedule property is located
in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3."

He also drew our attention to I.A. Nos. 1-2 of2005 -application filed by B
the State of A.P. in this Court seeking permission to urge additional evidence
and to file additional documents. By the said application, the State of A.P.
sought permission from this Court to present the said application for permission
to urge additional documents as Annexure P-10 in the S.L.P. which, document,
according to the State of A.P., has become necessary in the light of the C
confusion in respect of the identity and location of the application schedule
land. This application was filed on 23.6.2005 along with Annexure P-10 (MAP).

Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the
respondents adopted largely the arguments of Mr. R.F. Nariman and Mr.
Harish N. Salve. D
We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.

At the outset, it may be pointed out that the sheet anchor of the case
of the Government of A.P. projected for the first time before this Court and E
not urged before any Courts below is the physical location of the land in
dispute which is buttressed by a new map filed for the first time before this
Court to bolster up the said new false plea set up for the first time. As pointed
out by Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, no reasons whatsoever have been given as to why the said map
was not filed before any of the Courts below in a litigation which is five F
decades old. Nothing is stated as to wherefrom the said site map has originated
and on what survey and land record it is based. The said map, in our opinion,
is directly contrary to the undisputed authenticated site map issued by the
Collector himself which was Ex. B-12 before the trial Court. A true copy of
which is also annexed to the special leave petition. A perusal of Ex. B-12 G
shows that Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 in respect of which patta was
admittedly granted in favour of the first respondent are the same very place
where for the first time now they are being projected before this Court as
Survey No. 116/1. Ex. B-12 and its veracity issued by the Collector himself has
not been challenged at any time before any of the Courts below during the
last 50 years of litigation. It may surprise one's understanding as to how a H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A new survey number can be projected by filing a new map for the first time
in the place where survey Nos. 116/2 and 1I6/3 are shown situated. Absolutely
no reasons were given for filing of the said new map showing different survey
numbers contrary to the survey numbers as in Ex. 8-12. In fact there are
number of exhibits certified by the Collector himself which show Survey Nos.
116/2 and 116/3 situate at the very site where now Survey No. 116/1 is alleged
B to be situated. In fact Ex. B-12 issued by the office of the Collector showing
Survey Nos. I 16/2 and 116/3 abutting the main road has been drawn from the

C
village map as existing in the revenue records. A perusal of the said village
map annexed as Annexure to the S.L.P. also shows that Survey Nos. I 16/2
and 116/3 are situated at the very same place where for the first time now it
is being projected that Survey No. 116/1 is situated.
-
In our opinion, the .Government has not explained as to why Annexure
R-1 (new map) is filed for the first time in this Court in a litigation which is
five decades old and as to why the State of A.P. has concealed and not filed
Ex. B-12 which is part of the record below and on what revenue record the
D said new site map filed for the first time is based?
There cannot conceivably be any satisfactory explanation to the aforesaid
queriei!'which arise naturally in the light of the blatant false site map projected
for the first time and the submissions based thereon.

E We have gone through the grounds of appeals seeking leave to appeal
against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The
State, in our view, has raised inconsistent pleas/grounds before the High
Court as well. There is no allegation much less any proof that the respondents
have taken possession illegally and fully knowing that they were acting
F illegally while taking possession. There is also no allegation on any of the
respondents unauthorisedly snatching the land belonging to the Government.
On the other hand, the Special Court on an analysis of the evidence held that
the State has failed to establish that the land in possession of the respondent
fonns part of Survey No. 116/1 and on the other hand the applicant schedule
property is located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and that the first respondent
G is the owner of the property in dispute and is in possession of the said
property as owner. It is also not the case of the appellant that the Special
Court has either acted on evidence, which is legally inadmissible or has
refused to admit admissible evidence. The evidence adduced by the
respondents clearly established that the Sarfekhas administration i.e. the
H fonner Nizam's Government went into the title of this respondent and thereafter (
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 845

issued supplementary sethwar in her favour for an extent of Ac. 3.27 guntas A
and directed the sub-Division of Survey No. 116 into Survey Nos. 116/1, 116/
2 and 116/3 as back as in the year 1946, thus patta was granted by Surfekhas
authorities in favour of Mrs. Pramila Modi over an extent of Ac. 2.21 guntas
in Sy. No. 116/2 and Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy. No. 116/3. Survey No. 116/1 alone
was treated as Government land and not Sy. No. 116/2 and Sy. No. 116/3. The B
said order was also implemented and the mutation was also effected in the
revenue records. Mrs. Prameela Modi thus from the inception continued to
be in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 3.27 guntas in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/
3 as its owner. It is also a matter of record that from out of the said extent,
she alienated an extent of 11200 sq. yds. under registered sale deeds in favour
of two persons namely, Dr. Roopkaran under Document No. 170/1357 Fasli C
dated !st Khurdad 1357 Fasli and to Sri Basheruddin Ahmed Khan under
Document No. 2871/1357 Fasli, dated 2nd Amardad, 1357 Fasli who
subsequently sold to various persons from whom the respondents 2-8
purchased their respective plots.

A supplementary Sethwar issued by Sarfekhas authorities was marked D
before the Special Court as Ex. 8~5 in Urdu and its true translation is Ex. B-
6. A map was also marked as B-37 which clearly establishes that the land of
the respondent which was in possession of the respondent since more than
6 decades, which location of the land was identified, confirmed and also
certified by the Sarfekhas authorities by issuing copy of the map which was E
marked as Ex. B-37.

It was also submitted that the record of Sarfekhas Secretariat in file 99/
1945 of 1356 Fasli contains the approved plan of Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3
admeasuring Ac. 3.27 guntas. Though necessary corrections in the related
records were not carried out, Mrs. Prameela Modi continued to be in possession F
of the land as the owner. But the said proceedings were taken cognizance by
the revenue authorities including the Government and the title of Mrs. Prameela
Modi to the land was never questioned either by the Government of Hyderabad
or Government of Andhra Pradesh. In view of this, the contention of the
appellant that Mrs. Prameela Modi suppressed the sale deed before the G
Special Court is not correct. Her title as aforesaid is based on the supplementary
Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas authorities of the erstwhile Nizam Government
which was accepted by the Survey and Revenue authorities including the
Government of A.P. Since the orders of the Surfekhas authority are legally
binding upon the statutory authorities of the successive Governments, i.e. the
', H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Government of Hyderabad and later Government of A.P. The issue cannot,
therefore, be reopened either in facts or in law at this distance of time.

The Government of A.P. issued Memo No. 1547-Rl/65-27 dated 3rd
December, 1968 confirming the judgment of the Board of Revenue which is
marked as Ex. B-10. The first respondent filed W.P. No. 4526 of 1975 before
B the High Court of A.P. and the High Court by its order dated 28.8.1975 in
WPMP No. 6897/1975 in WP No. 4526/1975 directed the implementation of the
orders of the Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, the Board of
Revenue and that of the Memo of the Government aforementioned. When the
•
said orders were not implemented, a Contempt Case CC 44/1976 was filed by
C the first respondent wherein an undertaking was given on 7.2.1997 by the
Government stating that Mrs. Prameela Modi is being informed that the
supplementary Sethwar of 1356 Fasli was received and steps for the
implementation of the same were being taken and the said mutation would be
finalized during the Jamabandi.

D It is seen from the records that the Town Survey was finalized and
published on 25.9.1976 showing the land as Government land which was prior
to the aforesaid proceedings and as such it is impermissible for the Government
to state that the land is government land as per Town Survey Records. True
copy of the Hyderabad District Gazette dated 25.9.1976 publishing that the
E Town Survey was finalized and published on 25.9.1976 showing the land as
Government land is annexed and marked as Annexure R-14 in these appeals.

It was argued that the land of the respondents was demarcated by the
Government through the M.C. Inspector, Hyderabad under taluk in File No.
G6/2598/DM/0/75 dated 25.5.1976 and the same was informed to the Collector,
F Land Records, Hyderabad District through letter dated 2.1.1976 along with the
demarcated map of the respondent. It is also clear that long back the issues
of location of the scheduled property, the title of the first respondent, her long
standing possession and subsequent sales made by her were settled once of
all as evidenced by the proceedings at various levels including the
G Government. Therefore, after such a long time, it is not open to the government
to re-agitate the same issue both on the principles of res judicata and
estoppel. The matters which were concluded by the decisions of the competent
statutory authorities cannot be re-opened and a citizen cannot be subjected
to such repeated litigation. Therefore, the issue about the physical location
raised by the government, for the first time before this Court, by filing a
H fabricated and unauthenticated sketch which has no basis whatsoever, with. {
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 847
regard to the location of the land belonging to Mrs. Prameela Modi. A
We have carefully perused the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of the High Court. There is no illegality or irregularity and infirmity on
the face of the record by both the Courts below. The High Court has rightly
held that the Special Court neither acted on evidence, which is legally
inadmissible nor has refused to admit the admissible evidence and that the B
Special Court adverted itself to the correct issues that have fallen for its
consideration. The High Court and the Special Court have also rightly
concluded that the land in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is not government land
after perusing both oral and documentary evidence and rightly dismissed the
petition filed by the State by holding that there is no error apparent on the C

.. face of the record and further holding that the findings of fact reached by the
inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot
be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings and by holding that the High
Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation
or evaluation of the evidence. The High Court also relied on a judgment of D
this Court in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and Ors. v. Mahboob Begum and Ors.,
AIR ( 1955) SC 352 and Rajah S. V. Jagannath Rao v. Commissioner ofIncome-
tax, AIR (1962) SC 141 and held that the Nizam and his administration had
every right to recognize or grant patta in favour of any individual of his
choice in respect of Surfekhas properties. This apart there is ample evidence E
to show that the right and title to Mrs. Prameela Modi flows out of the
supplementary sethwar, which was examined in detail by the Director of
Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, the Board of Revenue
and the State Government thereafter. This was also examined by the High
Court in W.P. No. 4526/1975 and CC No. 44of1976 and also in W.P. No. 10159/
1998 which was confirn1ed in W.A. No. 2235 of 1998 and further by this Court F
., in S.L.P.(C) No. 12103 of2000. In our view, the continuance of the name of
Smt. Rabia Begum in revenue records against Sy. Nos. 115/2 and 115/3 has
no relevance since the claim of the first respondent is not based on the sale
deed but on the Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas.

In conclusion, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly upheld G
the findings of the Special Court that the State has failed to prove that the
Scheduled property is located in Survey No. 116/1. There is no irregularity
and infirmity in the judgment passed by the High Court as well as the Special

•
Court in rejecting the claim of the State. The Special Court elaborately
considered and concluded the title of the property in question in favour of H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
J
A the first respondent. Therefore there is no scope at all for this Court to
interfere with the considered factual findings at this belated stage. As already
noticed, the parties are litigating for the last 50 years and it is high time that
the parties should realize the correct fact situation and close the lis once &
for all.

B We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Special Court
and also the view taken by the High Court that the respondents herein have
not grabbed the land nor can they be characterized as land grabbers. We
further hold that the State of A.P. and its instrumentalities cannot be pennitted
to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question by the
.
C respondents in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, there shall be a direction
to the appellant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the land in question by the respondents in any manner whatsoever.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
..
D
vs. Appeals dismissed.