HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION Nos.3297, 6226, 12425 AND 16007 OF 2010.
DATED 20th JUNE, 2014.
WRIT PETITION No. 3297 of 2010:
Between V.V.Giri Nagar Association, rep. by its General Secretary, N.Ravi Kumar , Hyderabad.
……Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
….Respondents.
WRIT PETITION No. 6226 OF 2010:
Between P.Anjaneyulu and ors ……Petitioners.
And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and, others.
….Respondents.
WRIT PETITION No. 12425 OF 2010 Between State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
……Petitioner And V.V.Giri Nagar Association, rep. by its General Secretary, N.Ravi Kumar , Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents.
WRIT PETITION No. 16009 OF 2010:
Between Ronda Balaram Reddy and ors ….Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradcesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION Nos. 3297, 6226, 12425 AND 16007 OF 2010.
COMMON ORDER:
Inasmuch as all these Writ Petitions are interconnected to each other, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
INTRODUCTION :
Writ Petition No. 3297 of 2010 is filed by the VV Giri Nagar Association seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division in issuing the eviction proceedings No B/3544/2003 dated 5-2- 2010 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice particularly when the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad issued a Gazettee Notification dated 23-10-2009 Under Section 3(1) of A.P Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) act 1956 for declaring the land as ‘slum area’ while keeping the representation dated 29-01-2010 of petitioner's association for allotment of land is pending consideration.
Writ Petition No. 6226/2010 is filed by the alleged land grabbers to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 01.05.2009 made in I.A.No.679/2008 in LGC No.34/1990 before the 2nd respondent namely the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and to quash the same as being contrary to law and being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956.
Writ Petition No.12425 of 2010 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for records from the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad relating to the Judgment in LGC No. 87 of 2003 dated 28-12-2006 and quash the same as illegal and unjust and consequently allow LGC No. 87/2003 by declaring the Government as owner of the land measuring Ac.4.29 gts in S.No. 110 of Bakaram Village, Musheerbad Mandal, Hyderabad District.
Writ Petition No. 16007/2010 is filed by the alleged land purchasers/owners seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notification No. D3/Slum/5757/03 dated 23- 10-2009 published under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (A.A) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act 1956 as illegal, arbitrary and void and vitiated by malafide exercise of power and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 and to set aside the same.
THE FACTS:
The factual matrix as stated by the alleged land purchasers before the Land Grabbing Court as well as before this Court to the extent not in dispute is as follows: One late Triumbak Yogiraj was stated to be the original owner of the land in Survey Number 110 of Bakaram Village. He developed the said land into house plots in the year 1955 and obtained layout sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which approved the layout with 34 Plots. The alleged land purchasers or their predecessors in title claim to have purchased 11 plots in total admeasuring 4909 Sq. yards from the original owner in the year 1957 under different individual registered sale deeds for valuable sale consideration which were got marked as Ex.B-1 to B-6 in L.G.C.No.87/2003. It is alleged that the said land purchasers have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots till 1975. Subsequently in or about 1975, the alleged land grabbers have encroached on the subject land. As the alleged land grabbers were requesting the Government all the while to acquire the subject land and to grant house site Pattas to them, a Gazette Notification dated 31-10-1975 was issued and published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 for acquisition of the subject land for providing house sites to the alleged land grabbers (residents of V.V. Giri Nagar, i.e., the respondents in LG.C. No.34 of 90). In pursuance thereof, a notice was issued to late Sri Triumbak Yogiraj and predecessors in title of the alleged land purchasers, on 31-10-1975 directing them to deliver possession of the subject land notified on or before 17-11-1975. Subsequently for the reasons best known to the Government, it dropped the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 for acquisition of the land. Again in the year 1982, a notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (A.A) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act, 1956 ( for short ‘the Act’) vide Gazette Notification dated 25-11-1982. Thereafter, another notification under Section 3(2) of the Act was issued, which was published in Gazette dated 12-05-1983. Aggrieved by the said notifications, the alleged land owners approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.13733 of 1985 seeking a declaration that the said notifications issued by the Government in respect of the subject land as null and void. This Court by Judgment dated 12-07-1988 allowed the said Writ Petition and quashed the notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Act as null and void inasmuch as the Government issued the said notifications without notice to the alleged land owners. In the said judgment this Court held that the alleged subject land purchasers are the owners. The Government did not file any appeal against the said judgment and the said Judgment has become final. After the judgment in Writ Petition No. 13733 of 1985, wherein finding with regard to ownership was recorded, the alleged land purchasers filed L.G.C. No. 34 of 1990 before the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 seeking to declare the respondents therein (alleged land grabbers) as land grabbers and to evict them and to deliver the vacant possession of the subject land. The said LGC was allowed by judgment and decree dated 05.03.1993. Aggrieved by the said judgment in LGC.No.34 of 1990, the association of respondents therein filed Writ Petition No. 4824 of 1993 before this Court and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 30.07.1993 and thereby the judgment and decree in LGC.No. 34 of 1990 has become final, the same having not been questioned by the Government or the alleged land grabbers’ association before any Court of law by way of an appeal.
Thereafter, pursuant to the judgment in LGC.No. 34 of 1990, despite issuing notice to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, to evict the alleged land grabbers and deliver possession to the alleged land purchasers, he did not take appropriate action, and therefore the alleged land purchasers were constrained to file Writ Petition No. 13680 of 2003 before this Court seeking a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division to implement the order in LGC No. 34 of 1990, dated 5.3.1993. After filing the said writ petition, the Government filed L.G.C.No. 87 of 2003 against the alleged land grabbers and land purchasers seeking a declaration that the State is the owner of the subject land and that the respondents therein (alleged land grabbers and alleged land owners) are land grabbers and for a consequential direction to evict the alleged land grabbers (residents of VV Giri Nagar Association) and to deliver the vacant possession. Pursuant to the filing of LGC No. 87 of 2003, a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition, by order dated 15.10.2003 left it open to the alleged land owners to approach this Court for the very same relief in the event of the LGC filed by the Government being dismissed. Thereafter, LGC No. 87 of 2003 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed by the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act by order dated 28.12.2006. Thereafter the alleged land owners filed an application being I.A. No. 679 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act seeking a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad to implement the order in LGC. No. 34 of 1990. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued notices in Form-V to the respondents in LGC No.34 of 1990, i.e. the alleged land grabbers, on 5.2.2010 to vacate the subject land. While the matter stood thus, the Government once again issued notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. Questioning the eviction notice dated 5.2.2010, the association of the alleged land grabbers, i.e. VV Giri Nagar Association filed Writ Petition No. 3297 of 2010. Thereafter, the alleged land grabbers in their individual capacity filed Writ Petition No.6226 of 2010, the Government filed Writ Petition No.12425 of 2010 and the alleged land owners filed Writ Petition No.16007 of 2010 for the relief stated supra.
In this background of factual matrix, we will now proceed to consider synoptical submissions and issues involved in the Writ Petitions.
In WRIT PETITION No. 3297 of 2010:
It is the case of the petitioner-VV Giri Nagar Association that the members of the petitioner-association are residing in the subject land for the last fifty years by constructing pucca houses and that they were also given Municipal door numbers to their houses. It is their case that after LGC No. 34 of 1990 was allowed by the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act by order dated 5.3.1993 and dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4824 of 1993 filed by them against the judgment dated 30.7.1993 in LGC No. 34 of 1990 by this Court, neither the State nor the alleged land owners had taken any action for all these 17 years. It is their further case that when the Government issued Gazette notification dated 23.10.2009 under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the area covered by the subject land as ‘slum area’, the Government directed the District Collector to allot the subject land to the members of the petitioner association and not to take any drastic action against them; therefore the issuance of the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Act.
Neither the first respondent-Government nor the second respondent-District Collector nor the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division therein have filed counter to this Writ Petition.
Respondents 4 to 13 therein, i.e. the alleged land purchasers filed counter affidavit opposing the case of the petitioner-association. In the counter, they denied the averment that after lapse of seventeen years they have initiated the eviction proceedings against the petitioner-association. In regard thereto, it is stated that after the disposal of the LGC No.34 of 1990, they were making rounds to the office of the RDO for implementation of the orders in LGC No.34 of 1990 and when the RDO did not take any action, they have filed Writ Petition No.13680 of 2003 before this Court seeking a direction for implementation of the orders in LGC No.34 of 1990; while the said writ petition is pending adjudication, the Government filed LGC No. 87 of 2003 and the said LGC was dismissed by judgment dated 28.12.2006 and again when the RDO failed to take any action, they filed an application under Rule 15 of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules for implementation of the order in LGC No. 34 of 1990 and therefore the delay attributed by the petitioner-association is incorrect. It is further stated that the provisions of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act have overriding effect over other acts and therefore the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act is invalid. It is further stated that once the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act declared the members of the petitioner-association as land grabbers and issued a direction for their eviction and when such finding was affirmed by the superior Court, the members of the petitioner-association have no right to continue in the subject land.
We find some force in the case set up by the alleged land owners. The respondents in LGC No. 34 of 1990, i.e. the members of the petitioner-association, have filed Writ Petition No. 4824 of 1993 before this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed in LGC No. 34 of 1990 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 30.07.1993 and as the said judgment was not questioned in any proceeding before higher forum, the said judgment and decree in LGC No. 34 of 1990, dated 5.3.1993 has become final. Further it is to be seen that before the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Court, the members of the petitioner-association have not set up any rival title over the subject land, nevertheless, they contended that the same is Government land. It has come in the evidence that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 31.10.1975 proposing to acquire the subject land, the Government conceded that the said Triambak Yogi Raj was the owner of the subject land and even the Surveyor working in the MRO’s office at Musheerabad had admitted during the course of cross-examination that the name of said Triambak Yogi Raj was noted in Col No.11 as Inamdar of the subject land in the pahanies of the years 1973-1974 and 1974-75 and thereby it was held that the said Triambak Yoji Raj was the owner of the subject land and necessary occupancy certificate under the provisions of the AP(TA) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 must have been issued to him or else such entries could not have been entered in the revenue records. These findings of the Tribunal stated supra, have become final. In view thereof, the members of the petitioner-association at this stage cannot contend that no occupancy certificate was issued to the original owner.
Further, with regard to the contention of the respondents for issuance of notification under Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act, it is to be seen that this Court in Mullapudi Satyam Vs. Sub Collector {2003(2) An.W.R. 642}, while dealing with a case in similar circumstances, following the decisions of the Apex Court, observed that:
“Section 2(d) defines the term "land grabber" as a person or group of persons who commit land grabbing and a person who finances such land grabbing are land grabbers. The successors in interest, abettors and all persons claiming through a land grabber are also land grabbers. The intention of the legislation in defining Section 2(d) and Section 2(e) in a broadest language possible is again reflected in Sub-section (4) of Section 7-A as well as, Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Act. The said sub-section reads as under:
7-A(4) Every finding of the Special Tribunal 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 and every judgment of the Special Tribunal with regard to the determination of the title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land.
A plain reading of the above sub-section would show that a finding of the Special Tribunal with regard to any act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing. Such finding shall be binding on the persons who committed such land grabbing and every judgment of the Special Tribunal with regard to determination of the title and ownership or lawful possession of any land grabbed shall be binding on all the persons having interest in such land.”
It was further held in the said judgment that “In view of the clear intention of the legislation in Sub-section (4) of Section 7A, it must be held that the petitioners who have admittedly raised huts and who are in occupation of the petition schedule land are bound by the determination of the Special Tribunal and there would not be any hurdle for respondents 1 to 3 from evicting the petitioners from the land. As per Rule 15 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, when once the Special Tribunal communicates its final decision or order to the affected party and the Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub-Collector), the latter has to give effect to the decision of the Tribunal in accordance with the said Rule. If the relief is granted to the petitioners as prayed, the same would amount to issuing a mandamus contrary to law. It will also amount to issuing a mandamus to the respondents to ignore law. If any authority is required, a reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Parihar v. MPSRTC [1987]1SCR369 , and LIC of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar: (1994)IILLJ173SC.”
Further, in Ch.Suryanarayana Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh {1993 (1) APLJ 253 } in similar set of circumstances, this observed as follows:
“The judgment of the Special Court under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act had become final and effect has got to be given to the judgment and it is executable being a lawful decree granted by a competent Court constituted under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. It is incomprehensible to countenance the argument that despite the said order of eviction which has been passed against the slum dwellers for whose benefit the impugned notifications have been issued, the encroachment should be regularized under the guise of the impugned notifications issued under the Act. This action of the respondents to supersede the judicial decision by an executive action thereby scuttling the very judicial decision is impermissible. No law impliedly or expressly authorize the respondents to take such a course. Even if any law enacts such a provision, the same would be effort to judicial decision rendered and would be void and unconstitutional. It is not as if a judicial decision which is rendered is rendered in-executable by a legislative act of amendment viewing the basis of the judgment. That being not so, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right over the lands in question which they have purchased by a valid means of registered conveyance and for valuable consideration. ”
It was further held by this Court in the said judgment as follows:
“.......In any event of the matter, as the slum dwellers have suffered a decree for eviction, having been held that they are land grabbers and the said order of eviction having become final, supersedes the impugned notifications and the said orders of the eviction can be executed by the petitioners by taking recourse to the remedies availed under law…..”
In the light of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the decision of the special Court under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, having been allowed to attain finality, the said decision supersedes the subsequent notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act. Further, it is trite to be noticed that when the petitioners are encroachers of the land which is declared to be grabbed the land and the title and ownership of the respondents 5 to 14 was upheld, the judgment and decree of the Special Court is unassailable as challenge to the same was abandoned. Even the contention of the petitioners with regard to inordinate delay in taking steps for implementation of the judgment in LGC No. 34 of 990 merits no consideration inasmuch as the alleged landowners have been pursuing the subsequent proceedings initiated by the State as well as the petitioners in respect of the subject land.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the inevitable conclusion that can be reached in this Writ Petition is that as the members of the petitioner-association were already declared as ‘Land Grabbers’ in L.G.C. No.34/1990 and the same having attained finality upon being confirmed by this Court in the Writ Petition, which order having not been questioned in any further appeal before any higher Court, the petitioner-association cannot now challenge the eviction proceedings and therefore the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
In WRIT PETITION No. 6226 OF 2010:
The alleged land grabbers filed this Writ Petition in their individual capacity. It is the core case of the petitioners that once the AP (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 came into force, the land vests with the Government, till a re-grant is made in favour of the person/s as stipulated in the said Act. As no occupancy certificate in terms of the provisions under AP (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 was issued to the original land owner or his successors in title, the subject land vests with the Government. In support of this contention, they placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Lokraj Vs. Kishan lal {1995 (3) SCC 291}. It is no doubt true that consequent upon the abolition of the inams by virtue of giving effect to the AP (TA) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person having occupation of the inam lands stands divested and vests in the State until re-grant is made and the inamdar, loses the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land. Of course, in the LGC No. 34 of 1990 filed by the alleged land purchasers, the respondents therein, who are petitioners herein raised a contention in regard thereto, contending that no certificate as required under the provisions of the AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was issued in the name of the original owner, Triambak Yogi Raj, or his successors in interest. But, it is to be seen that after the said Act came into force with effect from 1.11.1973, a Gazette Notification dated 31.10.1975 was issued by the State under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the subject land for grant of house site pattas to the petitioners herein. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the original owner-Triambak Yogi Raj on 31.10.1975 directing him to deliver the possession of the subject land on or before 17.11.1975. Thus, the Government in the said notification conceded that the said Triambak Yogi Raj was the owner of the subject land. Further, in LGC No. 34 of 1990, the Surveyor working in the MRO office, Musheerabad was examined as RW.3. The said Surveyor admitted in his cross-examination that the name of said Triambak Yogi Raj was notified in Column No.11 as Inamdar of the subject land in the pahanies of the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Since, even after the Inams Abolition Act came into force, the name of the original owner of the subject was shown as Inamdar in the revenue records, the Special Court under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act held that the necessary occupancy certificate could have been issued to the original owner, else such entries would not have been there in the revenue records. Thus, the conclusion reached by the Special Court has been well founded upon the oral and documentary evidence as discussed herein above. Further, it is to be seen that questioning the decision of the Special Court in the LGC No. 34 of 1990, the petitioners herein/alleged land grabbers filed Writ Petition No. 4824 of 1993 before this Court. Even in the said Writ Petition also, the petitioners raised the same issue and this Court dealt with the same as under:
“ The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Special Court has erroneously presumed that necessary certificate was issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams, which is illegal. This submission has to be examined in the light of the evidence of R.W.3 who stated that the name of Triyambak Yogi Raj has been noted in Column-11 of the Pahanies and in view of the same, the Government issued a draft notification under the Land Acquisition Act under Ex.B.12 on October 31, 1975 showing the name of Triyambak Yogi Raj as the owner of the land in Survey No.110/2. In view of the evidence of RW.3 coupled with the fact that the Pahanies of the two previous years i.e. 1973-74 and 1974-75 contain the name of TriyambakYogi Raj as Inamdar, the submission of the learned Counsel that necessary certificate has not been issued , has not got much significance.”
In fact, the petitioners/alleged land grabbers herein have allowed the said finding to attain finality as they did not question the said finding in any proceeding before any higher forum. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners that the question of erstwhile inamadar or any person/s claiming through him having any interest in the subject land does not have any right in the land unless re-grant in terms of the Inams Abolition Act is made merits no consideration.
Drawing our attention to the decisions of this Court in K.Bharathi Vs. State of AP {2007 (6) ALD 86} and J.V.Sarma Vs. Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad {1997 (4) ALD 119}, the petitioners contend that once the provisions of Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 are invoked publishing a notice in the Gazette in respect of the subject land, the subject land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances and once the land is declared as slum, the Special Court though has jurisdiction, has to decide only in accordance with law, of which the Slum Act is one, and once it is found that under the Slum Act valid rights or title has been created in favour of State or persons, the Special Court is to respect it.
In the year 1982, the State has issued a notification in respect of the subject land under Section 3(1) of the Act vide Gazette Notification dated 25.11.1982. Another Notification under Section 3(2) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 12.5.1983. Questioning the said notifications, the alleged land purchasers filed Writ Petition No. 13733 of 1985 before this Court and by judgment dated 12.7.1988, the said Writ Petition was allowed. In the penultimate paragraphs of said judgment, this Court though held that the notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act are bad and illegal, but in the operative portion of the judgment it quashed only the notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Act on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the original owner. In view of this, it is the case of the petitioners/alleged land grabbers that declaration under Section 3(1) of the Act remained intact and no appeal having being filed thereagainst, the same has become final. In view of this controversy, it is just and necessary to reproduce the relevant portions of the order in Writ Petition No. 13733 of 1985, which read as under:
“…..Therefore it could not be comprehended that the Special Officer was not aware of the names and addresses notwithstanding the purchase of plots under registered deeds for which mutation of names also was sought for. The publication of the notifications without the knowledge of the petitioners and behind their back is mala fide. The area mentioned in the notifications is not at all a slum area but a posh locality. Hence, the purported declaration and the decision to acquire the said land are contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore the same is declared as illegal.
xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx … Therefore the explicit allegations made in the affidavit, which have not been denied as no counter has been filed, get reinforced that the authorities concerned had the knowledge that the petitioners are the owners and the unauthorized occupants who are the hut-dwellers could not be said to be the owners of the said plots. It was, therefore, mandatory for the Special Officer, MCH, before publication of the notification under Section 3(2) of the Act to issue individual notices to the petitioners and others who are interested in the plots and inasmuch as such notices admittedly have not been issued and since any violation thereof would nullify the effect of the notifications, the irresistible conclusion would be that the impugned notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and 3 (2) are bad and illegal and therefore, they must be declared as null and void.
Hence, without any hesitation this Court is constrained to hold that the Special Officers, MCH, had knowledge that the petitioners are the owners of the individual plots in question. Notwithstanding the same, notices admittedly have not been issued to the owners within the meaning of the provisio to Section 3(2) of the Act, which renders the acquisition void and illegal. Therefore, a writ of mandamus shall issue declaring the action initiated by publication of the notification under Section 3(2) of the Act in the Gazette as null and void.”
From the above excerpts, it is clear that the subject land as mentioned in the notifications is not at all a slum area but a posh locality. Therefore it was ruled in the said judgment that the purported declaration and the decision to acquire the said land are contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore the same was declared as illegal. Perhaps this could be the reason, for the learned Judge to reach the irresistible conclusion that the aforesaid notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act are bad and illegal. Though there is a technical error in the operative portion of the judgment, but that by itself cannot vitiate the entire decision. Even assuming for a moment, if the contention of the petitioners that notification under Section 3(1) remained intact, is considered to be correct, there is no necessity for the Government to once again re-issue the same notification on 23.10.2009. Questioning the said notification, the land owners filed a separate Writ Petition, details of which are discussed in the later part of the judgment. Thus, it is trite to be noticed that the order should be read in its entirety and given effect to thereon. Obviously, for the inevitable decision reached by the learned Judge in declaring the notifications under Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act as null and void, the alleged land purchasers though marked the said decision as well as said notifications as exhibits in LGC No.30 of 1994, however, the Special Court had not gone into the validity or otherwise of the notification on the ground that they were declared as null and void. Nevertheless, the said notifications were made applicable for different aspect, which is not necessary to discuss herein. The fact remains that neither the alleged land grabbers who were arrayed as respondents in LGC No. 34 of 1990 nor the alleged land purchasers have raised the validity or otherwise of the said notifications in the said LGC. This lapse appears to have taken place on account of the fact that required amount of attention was not paid to the matter by either of the party to the lis.
Further reliance placed on Mohammed Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi Vs. Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act {2007 (5) ALD 6} does not help the case of the petitioners herein. In the said decision, the application was filed on the premise that the applicant therein purchased the house property with the appurtenant land, however, the respondent therein forcibly occupied the house since he had been in illegal and unauthorized possession of the said house and open land. In this factual matrix, the points that arose for consideration were (1) whether the property in question is a building or land and (2) whether the Special Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of a house property with its appurtenant open land or not.? A Division Bench of this Court held that the building with appurtenant land will not come within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The facts in the case on hand are entirely different from the facts arise in the said case, and hence the aforesaid decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Likewise, the decision of this Court in J.V. Sarma Vs. Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 also no help to the case of the petitioners, inasmuch as in that case it was held that once the notification is published under the Slum Act and the respondents therein are made beneficiaries of that, they acquire right to be upon the land and therefore they cannot be described as land grabbers. In the case on hand, the petitioners herein were declared as land grabbers prior to the initiation of the proceedings under the Slum Act and therefore, as already stated supra, the judicial decision of a Court cannot be scuttled or made to supersede by executive action.
Further, it is to be seen that against the judgment passed in LGC No. 30 of 1994, the alleged land grabbers have filed Writ Petition No. 4824 of 1993 and in the said Writ Petition also, this Court observed that the notification issued under the provisions of the Act was quashed. Except this, this Court did not adjudicate as to the validity or otherwise of the said notifications. The petitioners having not raised any contention in regard thereto, cannot now be permitted to raise such contention at this stage. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the petitioners on the point in issue. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio decidendi in the said judgments. The fact however remains that the judgments relied on by them are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Prima facie it makes clear that they do not clinch the issue involved on the point in issue.
Apropos the contention of the petitioners that in the LGC No. 34 of 1990, the Special Court did not call for the report as provided under Rule 6 of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules from the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, which is mandatory before taking cognizance of the case, they placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan Vs. Shahsun Finance Limited {2005 (2) ALD 675 (FB)}. It is no doubt true that Rule 6 of the Rules provides that every application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or every case taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court may be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the area or by any other officer of the Government authorized by the Court in that behalf since such report essentially contains the details of the correctness of the statements made in the application and the facts relating to ownership, actual possession and user of the land concerned etc.,. In the light of this rule position, this Court in the case of Mohd Siddiq Ali Khan (supra) observed that the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer obviously renders valuable assistance to the Special Court in order to decide as to whether the application filed is a fit case to be taken cognizance of and therefore reference of application for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer before the Special Court takes cognizance of the case is a mandatory requirement. In continuance, the Full Bench further observed in the paragraph 90 of the judgment that such report cannot be equated to that of any evidence or collection of material; that taking into consideration the verification report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer would not amount to relying upon any evidence produced by the parties even before taking cognizance of the case and that the verification report may render valuable assistance to the Court for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case and that the report merely provides inputs enabling the Special Court to apply its mind to the fact situation for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case. Further, in a recent decision of the Apex Court in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy Vs. G. Veera Swamy and Ors {(2011)4SCC306}, it was observed that:
“We are thus of the considered opinion that the object of Rule 6 of the Rules is to assist the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to arrive at a correct decision on the claims and allegations made in the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 7A and Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act to the Special Tribunal or the Special Court and if this very object can be achieved without referring the application of the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer, it may not be necessary for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to make a reference to the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore there is no compelling duty on the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to refer the application under Section 7 A(1) or under Section 8 to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In other words, under the Act and the Rules, it is not mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to call for a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. We, however, hasten to make it clear that while there is nothing in the statutory provisions in Section 7A or Section 8A of the Act or Rule 6 of the Rules to indicate that the power vested in the Special Tribunal or the Special Court is coupled with a duty to refer the application filed before it to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the facts of a particular case before the Special Tribunal or the Special Court may cast a judicial duty on the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to refer the application filed before it to the Mandal Revenue Officer for the purpose of verifying the truth of the statements made in the application and deciding the land grabbing case before it in a just and reasonable manner.”
Thus it is clear from the above excerpts of the decision of the Apex Court and this Court that referring of the application by the Special Court under Rule 6 of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules to the Mandal Revenue Officer for local inspection or verification or both is not mandatory, but only directory.
The further contention of the petitioners/alleged land grabbers is that they were not made as parties to the LGC No. 87 of 2003 filed by the State and therefore the same is not binding on them, merits no consideration, inasmuch as the V.V.Giri Nagar Association formed by the petitioners was made as a party respondent to the said LGC and the said association contested the said LGC. Therefore the said contention has not got much significance. Even the further contention of the petitioners that after lapse of 18 years the respondents have filed an interlocutory application vide IA. No. 679 of 2008 seeking implementation of the judgment in LGC No. 34 of 1990 also merits no consideration in view of the reasoning given by us in foregoing paragraphs in Writ Petition No.3297 of 2010.
Apropos the contention of the petitioners that in the LGC No. 34 of 1990, the alleged land owners have not furnished the description of the property and they have concealed about the constructions of the houses which were already existing by that time, also merits no consideration. Trite to reiterate, the payment of land revenue by petitioners/land grabbers and making of applications by them to the Government for assignment of the schedule land or regularisation of their possession, completely demolish their case that their possession was open and hostile and they have acquired title by adverse possession In the light of the foregoing discussion, the inevitable conclusion that is to be reached by us is that when the petitioners herein/alleged land grabbers were declared as Land Grabbers in LGC No. 34 of 1990 and the same having become final having been affirmed by this Court, the proceedings taken by the land owners in IA.No. 679 of 2008 for implementation of the judgment in LGC No. 34 of 1990 cannot be challenged. In the view thereof, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
In WRIT PETITION No. 12425 OF 2010:
In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner-Government that after abolition of Inams and enacting the Inam Abolition Act, the land vests with the Government and the Government has become absolute owner inasmuch as no objections have been received in respect of the subject land; that said Triumka Yogi Raj whose name was recorded as Account Holder for the subject land cannot have any right or title to the subject property in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in Lokraj Vs. Kishan Lal (1995) 3 SC 291; that the petitioner- Government was not made as party-respondent to the earlier LGC No.34 of 1990 filed by the alleged land owners; that inasmuch as the Special Court has not called for report from the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer as contemplated under Rule 6 of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, the petitioner-Government was not in a position to put forth its claim in the said LGC; that the conclusion reached by the Special Court in LGC No.34 of 1990 regarding holding of the occupancy right by the original owner is not based on evidence; and that the Special Court having held that inaction on the part of the petitioner-Government in not setting up title or possession in itself do not strictly operate as res-judicata, it wrongly held that the Government is certainly estopped from claiming title at this juncture.
This is a glaring illustration where the Government instead of evicting the land grabbers under Rule 15 of the Land Grabbing Prohibition Rules, have resorted to further proceedings fur the reasons best known to it. The L.G.C. was dismissed by the Special Court by order dated 28-12-2006. After dismissal of the LGC No.87/2003, the Government did not choose to file writ petition immediately. When the land owners filed I.A. No. 679 of 2008 in L.G.C. No.34 of1990 for implementation of the decree in LGC No.34 of 1990, the Government filed Writ Petition No.12425 of 2010 after four long years on 30-04-2010. This is nothing but a frivolous writ petition and is a glaring illustration of abuse of process of law by the Government.
The Government is claiming that the land in question situated in Sy.No.110 of Bakaram village of Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District is an Inam land vested in Government in view of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1956. The contention of the Government is without any merit and the same is contrary to the earlier judicial pronouncements. Nevertheless, the reasoning given by us in the foregoing paragraphs would answer this contention. It is not in dispute that respondents 2 to 6 herein or their predecessors in title have purchased 11 plots admeasuring 4909 Sq. yards from the original owner in the year 1957 under different individual Registered sale deeds for valuable consideration which were marked as Ex.B-1 to B-6 in L.G.C.No.87/2003. From 1957 the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the sites till 1975. Subsequently in or about 1975 some unsocial elements have encroached on their plots and illegally grabbed them. In fact the Government of A.P. has accepted the ownership of the original owner Triumbak Yogi Raj in respect of the land in Sy.No. 110 of Bakaram. As the land grabbers were requesting the Government all the while to acquire the land and to grant house site Pattas to them, Notification dated 31-10-1975 under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1897 was issued for acquiring the land in question for providing house sites to the residents of V.V. Giri Nagar i.e., the respondents in LG.C. No.34 / 90. A notice was issued to the said late Triumbak Yogiraj respondents’ predecessor in title on 31-10-1975 directing him to deliver possession of the land notified on or before 17-11-1975. Subsequently for the reasons best known to the Government, it dropped land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1897. Again in the year 1982 a notification was issued under Section 3 (1) of the A.P. (A.A) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act, 1956 vide Gazette Notification dated 25-11-1982. Another notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act was issued in Gazette dated 12-05-1983. From these proceedings, the Government itself has shown that respondents 2 to 6 herein are the owners of the subject land and the Government never exercised ownership right over the subject land and on the other hand it admitted that respondents 2 to 6 are the owners of the subject land. Further, it is to be seen that aggrieved by the said notifications the land owners have filed Writ Petition No.13733 of 1985 before this Court. The Government was a party respondent in the said writ petition. This Court by Judgment dated 12-07-1988 allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications issued under the Slum Improvement Act. Therein, this Court categorically held that respondents 2 to 6 herein and their predecessors in title are the owners of the land i.e., 4909 Sq. Yards in S. No.110 of Bakaram. Since the Government published the notification without notice to the owners i.e., the respondents 2 to 6 herein, this Court quashed the said notifications. The Government has not filed any appeal against the said judgment and the said Judgment has become final. Therefore said judgment is binding on the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In view thereof, the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13733 of 1985 dated 12-07-1988 operates as Res Judicata and this writ petition No.12425 of 2010 filed by Government is liable to be dismissed as barred by Res-Judicata. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh Vs State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1965 SC1153) wherein the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 60 and 61 that the decision in earlier Writ Petition delivered on merits and the subsequent lis involving the same questions and for same relief is barred upon general principles of res judicata.
It is to be seen that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is a party respondent in Writ Petition No.13733 of 1985. In the said Writ Petition, the Government did not choose to file counter affidavit. This Court called for the records from the respondents and found that the respondents 2 to 6/land owners were recognized as the owners of the subject land. A reading of the judgment in the said Writ Petition would disclose that the Government is not the owner of the land and in fact Government recognized the respondents 2 to 6 herein as land owners.
It is trite to observe that in L.G.C. No.87/2003 the Tahsildar, Musheerabad was examined as P.W.1 on behalf of the Government regarding ownership of the subject land. At page 15 of the Judgment in L.G.C.No.87/2003 the evidence of Tahsildar P.W.1 was extracted, which reads as under:
“ The respondents, in order to establish right, title and interest in their favour have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 who categorically admitted stating “Government did not claim the land for itself prior to the filing of the L.G.C at any time.” He also admitted that he did not know whether these lands were ceased to be agricultural lands by 1950. They also relied upon the notification issued by the Government under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and under Section 3 of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act wherein the Government itself has shown respondents 2 to 6 as owners of the application schedule property. This submission by the Government itself, indicate that the Government never exercised ownership rights over the application Schedule land and on the other hand, it is admitted by the Government that respondents 2 to 6 are the owners of the application schedule property.”
From the above it is clear that the Government never exercised ownership over the subject land and on the other it admitted that respondents 2 to 6 herein are the owners of the subject land. Reliance placed by the learned Special Government Pleader in support of his contention in Lokraj & others Vs Kishan Lal &others {1995 (5) SCC page 291}, has no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of agricultural land claiming to be the Inam land. But in the case on hand, it is non- agricultural land, not governed by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The subject land is governed by the provisions of Section 9 of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The subject land ceased to be agricultural land long prior to 1955. Admittedly the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad approved the lay-out of plots for residential houses in or about 1956 and permissions were accorded for construction of houses to several plot owners. This fact is evident from the Judgment in Writ Petition No.13733 of1985. It is just and necessary to have a look at Section 9 of the Act, which reads as follows:
“ Section 9. VESTING OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND INAM LANDS USED FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE:-
(1) Every private building, situated -------------
(2) Where an inam land has been converted for any purpose unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force.
(3) The vesting of private buildings or lands under Sub-Section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the payment of non-agricultural assessment that may be imposed by Government from time to time.”
The provisions of A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inam land Act, 1955, were brought into force w.e.f. 1- 11-1973. Therefore the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, has no application to the subject land and the decision cited by the Special Government Pleader has no application to the facts of the case.
The respondents herein have purchased their respective house site plots from the original owner of the land under Registered sale deeds Ex.B1 to B6 dated 14-05-1957. They have acquired title to the land in lawful manner from the original owner of the land. They are not in possession of the land also. Therefore the said respondents cannot be treated as land grabbers. Land Grabber is a person who occupies the land without any title to the land illegally. Therefore L.G.C.No.87 of 2003 filed by State of A.P is not maintainable for one another reason that Land Grabbing Case can be filed only against a person who has highhandedly entered into possession of the land with an intention to grab the Government land. Here the respondents 2 to 6 are not in possession of the land and they have filed L.G.C.No.34 of 1990 to evict the 98 land grabbers who are the respondents therein i.e., the members of the first respondent V.V. Giri Nagar Association. A land grabbing case can be filed against a person who has grabbed the land and who is in illegal possession of the land. Thus the mala fide action of the Government is evident from inaction on its part in evicting the persons who were already declared as land grabbers. The Government without evicting the actual land grabbers filed the Land Grabbing case against the real owners who are trying to evict the real land grabbers. This action of the Government shows that the Government is acting with a mala fide intention. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Pramila Modi {2005 (3) ALT 379} held that the land grabbing case cannot be filed against a person who is not in possession of the land and who is claiming lawful title to the land. Therefore the Land Grabbing case filed against the land owners/respondents is not maintainable in law and in fact rightly dismissed.
Another relevant point that requires to be noticed is that, the total land in Survey No.110 of Bakaram village is Ac.4.29 Gts. The Government is not taking any action to take possession of the entire Ac.4.29 Gts. The Government filed L.G.C.No.87 of 2003 against the respondents 2 to 6 only in respect of 4638 Sq.Yards. If the Government is serious in taking possession of the land it should have filed case for evicting all the persons who are occupying Ac.4.29 Gts. The Government confined its action in L.G.C.No.87 of 2003 only in respect of 4638 Sq. Yards, when the respondents 2 to 6 filed I.A. No. 679/2009 in L.G.C.No.34/1990 to evict the persons who were already declared as land grabbers.
After the judgment in Writ Petition No. 13733 of 1985, respondents/land owners filed L.G.C. No.34 of 1990 before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 to declare the 98 respondents therein as land grabbers and to evict them and to deliver vacant possession of the land. The Special Court published the notification in Form-IIA in A.P. Gazette inviting objections from all the interested persons. Despite the same, the Government did not raise any objections to the case filed by the land owners or did not make any claim to the land in question. Apart from the said Gazette Notification under Rule 7, in every case the application would be used to referred to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer for verification and submission of a report under Rule 6 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. However, as stated supra, the same is not mandatory, but only directory. Notwithstanding the same, pursuant to the Gazette Notification, the Mandal Revenue Officer did not submit any objections to the application filed by the land owners before the Special Court stating that the land belongs to the Government. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mushirabad produced records and gave evidence in L.G.C. No.34/1990. The land grabbers/members of the petitioner Association (Respondents in L.G.C. No.34/90) raised a contention that the land belongs to the Government. Therefore the Special Court called for the Revenue Records. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad was examined as R.W. 8. The Mandal Surveyor was examined as R.W.3 to mark the documents produced by him. Thus, even the Government was not arrayed as party-respondent to the said LGC, however, the filing of the said LGC was well within the knowledge of the Government. Since the subject land is a private land, and the dispute is in between the alleged land owners and the alleged land grabbers, the Government was not made as party respondent. More so, the Special Court examined the issue whether the land in question is an Inam land and whether it belongs to the Government and negatived the contention of the land grabbers that the land belongs to the Government and declared the respondents therein as Land Grabbers and directed their eviction by Judgment and decree dated 05-03-1993. It is well settled that a finding of the Special Court with regard to any act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and such finding shall be binding on the persons who committed such land grabbing and every judgment of the special Tribunal with regard to determination of the title and ownership or lawful possession of any land grabbed shall be binding on all the persons having interest in such land. Therefore the Judgment in L.G.C.No.34/1990 is a Judgment in rem and binding on Government and the same operates as Res judicata.
In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, the contentions of the petitioner-State merit no consideration. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
In Writ Petition No.16007 of 2010:
The Government once again issued a Notification under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (A.A) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act 1956, to acquire the land for the benefit of the Land Grabbers after they were declared as land grabbers by the Special Court. This is a glaring example of misuse and colorful exercise of power by the Government. The Government instead of evicting the land grabbers and delivering the possession of the land to the land owners as per the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, has resorted to acquire the land under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (A.A) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land)Act 1956 to the benefit of the land grabbers. Hence the land owners filed this writ petition challenging the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the A.P. (A.A) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act 1956.
Though this Writ Petition was admitted on 26.07.2010, no plea has been taken by the Government inter alia by filing counter affidavit supporting initiation of the impugned proceedings under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Land Acquisition) Act.
At this point of juncture, it is just and necessary to have a look at the Judgment rendered in Ch.Suryanarayana Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh {1993 (1) APLJ 253}, wherein it was held:
“ Scanning through the provisions of the Act, leaves one, in no doubt that the said Act do not intend to permit the land grabbers turning them into lawful possessors, under the guise of the notification issued under Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Act and certainly not after a judicial verdict that the slum dwellers are land grabbers. In any event of the matter, as the slum dwellers have suffered a decree for eviction, having been held that they are land grabbers and the said order of eviction can be executed by the petitioners by taking recourse to the remedies available under law. The impugned notifications are thus set aside for the reasons stated supra.”
Further, in the same decision, this Court observed that once the judgment and decree of the Special Court had become final and has not been given effect to, it is executable by a competent Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. It was further observed that despite the said order of eviction, which has been passed against the slum dwellers for whose benefit the impugned notifications have been issued, the argument that such encroachment should be regularized under the guise of the impugned notifications issued under the Act is incomprehensible and cannot be countenanced. And therefore this action of the Government authorities to supersede the judicial decision by an executive action thereby scuttling the very judicial decision is impermissible.
In view of the law laid down by this Court, if the impugned notification is held to be valid, it only means that the encroachers can intrude into anybody’s land and by catching hold of executives, can get their encroachment validated under the guise and ruse of terming it as a ‘slum’ and by declaring so in colourable exercise of the powers under the AP Slum Improvement (Land Acquisition) Act, 1956 and then deprive the lawful owners of their valuable rights. In such circumstances, the Government therefore cannot resort to the provisions of A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act, 1956, in respect of the subject land, inasmuch as the Special Court has already given a ruling in LGC No. 34 of 1990 which has become final and got executable. It is obvious, that the action taken on the part of the State must show the juristic clarity that the action is not beset with any such bad faith or malice. The authority should have exercised more consideration and restraint before deciding to issue Section 3(1) notification under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Land Acquisition) Act, when the declaration was made by the Special Court that the petitioners herein are the owners of the subject land and the Government is not the owner, earlier to the proceedings initiated under the A.P. Slums Improvement Act so as to avoid further Court litigations and in the best interest of the land owners in terms of the judgment of the Special Court, which attained finality, and the precedents of this Court in the earlier round of litigations.
Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the land owners have been subjected to a lot of harassment in the hands of the executive in spite of their succeeding in two rounds of litigation before the Special Court and therefore it is appropriate for the Government to evict the land grabbers from the subject land of 4909 Sq.Yards and deliver vacant possession thereof to the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months or in alternative the Government shall, as agreed to by the petitioners, acquire the land under the newly enacted Land Acquisition Act 30/2013 and pay them compensation in adherence to the terms of the judgment of the Special Court as well as the precedents of this Court in the earlier round of litigations.
It is obvious, because, it is a case of total non-application of mind by the concerned authorities to the factual matrix of the case, and the events that transpired earlier to the decision taken in this case to acquire the land in dispute. Without making any semblance of effort in that direction, the decision to initiate proceedings under the AP Slum Improvement (Land Acquisition) Act cannot, in our considered view, be free from the allegation of bad faith. More particularly, the explicit averments made in the affidavit, which have not been denied by the respondents as no counter has been filed get reinforced that the authorities concerned had the knowledge of the judgment and decree passed by the Special Court and upholding of the same by this Court and that once the persons in occupation are declared as Land Grabbers, notification under the Slum Act cannot be issued. In the recent decision of the Apex Court in Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Gundala Venkaiah {2010 (2) SCC 461} it was held that with a view to ensure that the respondents are not able to manipulate the State apparatus for continuing their illegal occupation of schedule land in question, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries are directed not to regularize their possession. It was further observed therein that the respondents shall also not be entitled to invoke jurisdiction of any court including the High Court for securing an order which may result in frustrating implementation of this Court's order. The above circumstance coupled with the background history of the case would in our considered view lead to an inescapable conclusion that the action on the part of the Government in having decided to acquire the land in dispute under the Act 1956 is in total violation of the judicial decision of the Special Court in LGC No. 34 of 1990 and is nothing short of a colourable exercise of power.
In the light of the above discussion, the impugned notification issued under A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act, 1956, is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be allowed.
CONCLUSION:
For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, Writ Petition Nos. 3297 of 2010, 6226 of 2010 and 12425 of 2010 are dismissed and Writ Petition No. 16007 of 2010 is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Dated 20th June, 2014. Msnro