LexA.V. PAPAYYA SASTRY AND ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
}· A.V. PAPA YYA SASTRY AND ORS. A \! GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. MARCH 7, 2007 [C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWARSINGH PANT A, JJ.] B .A Constitution of India-Article 136-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Section 34-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4(/)-Competent authority under Ceiling Act declaring land owners as c 'non-surplus land owners' on basis of their declarations stating that advance possession of their surplus lands were taken over in a Land Acquisition proceeding-Land Acquisition Proceeding re-initiated thereafter-Exercise of revisional powers by State on the ground of false declarations by the land owners-High Court allowing writ Petitions of the land owners on the ground that the powers were exercised by the State beyond reasonable D time-Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the State- High Court recalling its earlier order noticing fraud by the land owners after ...... considering a report of an investigating agency-Correctness of-Held, judgment or order of a Court obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-est in law-On facts, !and owners committed fraud in collusion with State officers E and filed false declarations under the Ceiling Act-Hence, exercise of revisional powers by the State upheld. Appellants-land-owners filed declarations under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stating that the possession of their lands was handed over to respondent-port Trust authorities in Land Acquisition F 1.. proceedings before the appointed date; and that they had no surplus lands. On the basis of their declarations, competent authority under the Ceiling Act passed an order declaring the appellants as 'non-surplus land holders'. When a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued for acquisition of the lands of the appellants, the competent authority under the Ceiling Act issued a notice to the appellants as to why revisional G powers should not be exercised under section 34 of the Ceiling Act and the - -+ order of the competent authority should not be set aside on the ground that •., they had filed - a false declaration and that title to the lands was still with the appellants since the Land Acquisition proceedings were not completed by the 603 H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 SC.R. A appointed day. ~1 The appellants filed a writ petition before High Court to direct the State to complete the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pass an award. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State allowed the revision under B section 34 of the Ceiling Act. The appellants filed another Writ Petition. The High Court allowed both the writ Petitions. The High Court directed the State authorities to complete the Land Acquisition Proceedings and held that the exercise of revisional power under the Ceiling Act after a long period was illegal. Writ Appeals filed by the State were dismissed by the High Court. A. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the State were also dismissed by this c Court. The State, thereafter, filed recall applications before the High Court contending that a fraud was committed by the appellants by making false declarations by not showing the lands as surplus lands; and that the possession of the land was never handed over to the port Trust since the land Acquisition D proceedings were not concluded by the appointed day of the Ceiling Act The State further contended that the High Court earlier ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter; that the CBI gave a report revealing that the appellants committed a fraud in collusion with the officers of the Port Trust and those acting under the Ceiling Act; and E that the CBI report was not considered by the High Court while hearing the Writ Appeals. The High Court allowed the recalling applications. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that they handed over advance possession of their lands to the Port Trust Authorities; that the exercise of revisional powers under section 34 of the Ceiling Act by the State F after thirteen years is wholly unwarranted and this has been upheld by the High court and this Court; that, after the dismissal of the Special Leave ,,._ Petition of the State by this Court, the High court erred in entertaining recall ~ , applications and grant relief; that such an exercise of power is unlawful and abuse of process of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.