LexDR.KAZIMUNNISA (DEAD) BY L.R. versus ZAKIA SULTANA (DEAD) BY L.R.& ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 11 S.C.R.1019 DR.KAZIMUNNISA (DEAD) BY L.R. A v ZAKIA SULTANA (DEAD) BY L.R.& ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 18783-18784 of 2017) B NOVEMBER 15, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 C - s.8 - Two cases filed by the respondents, one in 1998 against the appellant with District Collector and Special Officer, Land Ceiling also as parties and the other in 2004, only against the appellant before Special Court claiming possession of a portion of the suit land occupied by appellant - Special Court dismissed the case filed D · in 1998, however, allowed the one filed in 2004 holding that respondents were the owners of the portion of the suit land which was in possession of the appellant - Writ petitions u!Art.227 filed by both, the appellant and ihe respondents - High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondents while dismissed the one filed by the appellant - On appeal, held: Admittedly, when two cases E arising between the same parties and in relation to the same piece of suit land were filed for grant of identical reliefs then both the cases should have been clubbed together, u/Or. II, r.3, of the Code, to avoid any conflicting decision in both the cases - Further, though the District Collector filed his counter affidavit in the 1998 case F not only denying the respondents' title but also pointing out as to who was the original owner of the suit land, no counter affidavit was filed in the 2004 case since District Collector was not made a party in the said case resulting in passing of conflicting decisions on the same set of facts and evidence - Impugned judgment set aside - Both the cases remanded to Special Court for their disposal G afresh on merits after club/Jing them together - District Collector and the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad also to be made party in the 2004 case - Parties to contest the case before the Special Court de novo on merits - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. II, r.3 - Constitution of India - Art.227. H 1019 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R. A Partly allowing the appeals, the Court B c HELD: 1.1 Both the cases in question, i.e. (L.G.C. Nos.41/ 1994 and 50/2004) are remanded to Special Court for their disposal afresh on merits in accordance with law. The need to remand both the LGCs to the Special Court is considered necessary due to the following reasons. First, it is found that the trial of the two cases before the Special Court was not satisfactory inasmuch as when admittedly the two LGCs arising between the same parties and in relation to the same piece of suit land were filed for grant of identical reliefs under The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 then, both the cases should have been clubbed together for their disposal on merits in accordance with law to avoid any conflicting decision in both the cases. It was more so when both the cases were capable of being clubbed together because both were pending though filed one after the other, neither the parties nor the Courts below took note of this D with the result, the same resulted in passing two conflicting orders - one was decreed and the other suffered dismissal. This recourse adopted by the Court below caused prejudice to the parties and, especially, to the party who lost the case. [Paras 25-28] [1025-G- H; 1026-A-D] E 1.2 Indeed, this was an appropriate case where the provisions of Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with joinder of causes of action, could have been resorted to by the Court suo moto for clubbing the two cases as the facts involved in both the cases satisfied the attributes of F Order II Rule 3 of the Code. Second, it is found that the case which was filed first, i.e.,(L.G.C.No.41/1994), the District Collector and the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad were rightly made parties-non-applicants by the respondents whereas in other case, i.e., (L.G.C. No.50/2004) filed subsequently, G both the State authorities were not made parties for the reasons best known to the respondents. These two State authorities should also have been arrayed as non-applicants in the second case, i.e., LGC No. 50/2004 like the earlier one to maintain parity in both the cases. The parties as also the Courts below overlooked this aspect though material for the proper disposal of both the H cases. Third, it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.