M/S. BHARAT FABRICATORS & ORS. versus SPL. COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 15-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 760 
M/S. BHARAT FABRICATORS & ORS. 
v. 
SPL. COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) 
ACT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6409 of2016) 
JULY 15,2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - 7(4) 
- Proceedings under the Act - Respondents therein held land 
grabbers by the Special Tribunal as well as Special Court -Appellant 
filed writ petition for declaration that the orders were not applicable 
to their industrial units - Plea taken that land grabbing proceedings 
were initiated without impleading them and that there were 
procedural irregularities - Petition dismissed - Review petition 
against the same also dismissed - On appeal, held: The title of the 
property in dispute of the applicant was firmly established - The 
appellants failed to establish their title and possession - In the facts 
of the case appellants were not alien to land grabbing proceedings 
and despite that they jailed to implead - Plea of procedural lacunae 
is also not sustainable since was taken at belated stage - Andhra 
Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 - rr. 6, 7, 8 and 
9. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Special Tribunal as well as the Special Court 
returned a concurrent finding that the land in question was allotted 
to Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2 society. The two reports 
independently made by Commissioner Advocate as well as the 
Assistant Director were correctly relied upon by the two forums 
below and was upheld by the High Court. Once the title of 
Respondent No.3 was firmly established, the appellants were duty 
bound to rebut these evidences .and establish their title and 
possession. The appellants miserably failed to lead· any evidence 
as to their title and only one evidence as to their possession was 
proved which related to the year 1989 and nothing subsequent 
760 
MIS. BHARAT FABRICATORS v. SPL. COURT UNDER A.P. 
761 
LAND GRABBING 
was shown to prove the possession ,of the appellants. Moreover, 
if the stand of the appellants is perused ,carefully they have not 
been clear with their stand on their title. [Para 9] [763-H; 764-A-
B] 
2. Another aspect which the High Court categorically dealt 
with was that of suppression of facts by the appellants. The ap-
pellants claim that they were not a party to the proceedings be-
fore the Special Tribunal and the Special Court. However, upon 
perusal of the case records it is established that the appellants 
were not_ alien to the proceedings under the Land Grabbing (Pro-
hibition) Act, 1982. Appellant No.4 himself filed I.A. No.300 of 
1994 before the Special Court to be impleaded as a party. Also in 
I.A. No.285 of 1994, appellant Nos.1 and 2 were sought to be 
impleaded as party. However, the fact of tiling of the above two 
application_s was suppressed which was a deliberate act on the 
part of the appellants. The High Court was, therefore, correct in 
concluding that the appellants did not come before the Court 
with clean hands.[Para 10) [764-C-E] 
3. As regards the plea of non-compliance of the procedure 
as envisaged in the Act and the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) 
Rules, 1988, the plea _has no effect on the merits of the case and 
is therefore of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of 
the case. The appellants have failed to implead themselves be-
fore the Special Court even when the fact of pendency of the 
case was known to them. The ground of procedural lacunae must 
fail as well being taken at a belated stage and on that basis, the 
appellants cannot be allowed to assail the substantive adjudica-
tions and the findings arrived at concurrently by the three fo-
rums below. The decision of the High Court is based on a correct 
analysis of facts and law and rendered in the rational exercise of 
its discretion. [Paras 11 and 12] [764-F-E; 765-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6409 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29. l 0.2007 of the High Court 
of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Review W. P. Miscella-
neous Petition No. 26665 of2007. 
WITH 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
C. A. No. 6410 of2016. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
V. V. S. Rao, Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advs., Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. 
Akanksha Mehra, Anando Mukherjee, Mis. Lawyer S. Knit & Co., Advs. 
for the Appel I ants. 
M. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., K. K. Waghray, Anil Kumar Tandale, Advs. 
for the Respondents.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.