M. DURGA SINGH & ORS. versus YADAGIRI & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 18-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
M. DURGA SINGH & ORS.
v.
YADAGIRI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2006)
APRIL 18, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 –
s.8(1) – Land grabbing – Appellant filing a land grabbing case
against respondent under the 1982 Act – Allegation that respondent
grabbed about 500 sq yards of land owned by appellants – Dismissal
by the Special Court – Appellant had already filed couple of
proceedings alleging encroachment and land grabbing before the
civil court which were also dismissed – Writ petition against the
Special court’s order also dismissed – On appeal, held: Appellants
themselves approached the civil court and now they cannot submit
that they approached the wrong forum – If the appellants believed
that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit
instituted by them, then the proper course of action would have
been to withdraw the suits and proceed under the Act and not to
pursue more proceedings – Appellants invited trouble either by
pursuing the litigation in the wrong forum or by not approaching
the right forum – For this, the appellants are themselves to be blamed
and cannot hide behind the veil of a lack of jurisdiction of the civil
court – Appellants were given a full-fledged hearing by the Special
Court under the Act – Special court held that the appellants failed
to establish that they are the owners of the schedule property; that
the respondents had trespassed on the suit property without legal
entitlement, thus, were land grabbers; and that there is no certainty
about the land alleged to have been grabbed by the respondents –
Appellants sought to rely upon a report given by the Local
Commissioner appointed by the civil court which did not indicate
much – Said report was not proved in evidence before the Special
Court or even in the Suit – Moreso, the Local Commissioner was
not examined with regard to the correctness of the report –  Further,
if the submission of the appellants that the suits instituted after 1982
are not maintainable, then even the report of the Local Commissioner
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 863
863
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
is without jurisdiction – Thus, Special Court fully justified in
dismissing the land grabbing case.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5645
of 2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the High Court
Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 21808 of
1994.
B. H. Marlapally, Sr. Adv., Apoorv Shukla, V. Sriidhar Reddy, Ajit
Wagh, Aditya Gaggar, V. N. Raghupathy, M. Kishan Singh, Advs. for
the Appellants.
B. Adinarayana, Sr. Adv., M. Srinivas R. Rao, Arun Devdas,
Sharvanth, Goli Ramakrishna, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, V. G. Pragasam, G.
Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Ms. Filza Moonis, Bharat
J. Joshi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi (for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law
Associates), Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. The tenacity and stamina with which
the appellants have been litigating for decades must be admired, but
nothing else.  We will subsequently mention the various proceedings
instituted by the appellants which give us this belief.
2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to 500 square yards in Survey
No.87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadapally Mandal, Hyderabad District.
This area is said to form a part of the total area in Survey No.87
approximating acres 0-34 guntas.  The appellants claims to be the owners
of the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbers
who are liable to be evicted.
3. Suit No.106 of 1967 was filed by the predecessors-in-interest
against the predecessors of the respondents.  The litigating parties are
referred, for convenience, as appellants and respondents, regardless of
who their predecessors in interest were.  In this suit, a claim was made
for 20 square yards of land from Survey No.87.  In the paper book, the
extent of land appears at one place to be 33.5 square yards.  Be that as
it may, the suit was dismissed on merits by the Trial Court on 29th March,
1975 and it was held that the appellants had not been able to prove their
title to the suit land and the boundaries had not been specifically stated.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
865
It is important to note that one of the findings given by the Trial Court in
the judgment is that the respondents had a house on the land in dispute.
4. The appellants later filed OS No.1167 of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.