LexMEGHMALA & ORS. versus G. NARASIMHA REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 10 S.C.R. 47 MEGHMALA & ORS. v. G. NARASIMHA REDDY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.6656-57 of 2010) AUGUST 16, 2010 ,, " (/' [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: A Suit land purchased by appellant/applicant by way of a c registered sale deed - Challenge not made by anyone as to the validity of the sale deed - In earlier proceedings, respondents claiming right ·over suit land - However, not producing any document to show their right, interest or title in the suit land - Order attaining finality to the effect that there D was no misrepresentation or fraud or suppression of material fact on the part of the app,ellant in respect of his claim over suit land - Fresh proceedings by respondents raising issue 'of fraud - Held: Wou°Jd be tantamount to malicious prosecution as the issue had earlier been adjudicated upon - Finding of facts. was recorded in earlier proceedings that the E appellant was in actual possession of land and was illegally dispossessed by the respondents - Land grabbing. s.10 - Allegation of land grabbing - Burden to prove innocence - Held: Is on the accused - It is not like any other F criminal case where accused is presumed to be innocent unless the· guilt is proved - Criminal law - Burden of proof . Review: Review application - Maintainability of - Held: In case a review application is filed before filing the special G /eave· petition and the review application remains pending till the dismissal of the special leave petition; then the review application deserves to be considered - However, if a review application is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special 47 H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A leave petition, the process of filing review application would amount to abuse of process of the court and such an application is not maintainable - Administration of justice - Abuse of process of law. B Judgment/order: Obtained by playing fraud on court - Validity of - Held: An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously - Order obtained by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority not valid in the eyes of law - Fraud is an anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or C saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata -:- Equity - Fraud on couff. The suit land was purchased by the appellant/ applicant by way of registered sale deed dated 21.5.1980. D The appellant filed a complaint under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against the respondents stating that they grabbed his land and raised construction. thereon. The plea raised by the respondents was that in respect of the suit land, there E was an agreement to sell dated 23.01.1976, in favour of a Society which had allotted the land in their favour, therefore, the vendors of the appellant had no right to· transfer the land in favour of the appellant. The Special Court by order dated 4.11.1997 held that the appellant F was the owner of the suit land and that the respondents were land grabbers. The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Thereafter the respondents filed special leave petition before this Court 'which was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty G to the. respondents to file review petition before the High Court. The respondents filed a review petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order in execution proceedings passed . on 7 .11.2002, the appellant was put into possession of H MEGHMALA & ORS. v. G. NARASIMHA REDDY & 49 ORS. the suit land on 16.12.2002. The respondents filed writ A petitions challenging the order dated 7 .11.2002 which were dismissed by the High Court by order dated 17.12.2002. The review petitions filed thereagainst before the High Court, were also dismissed. In 2005, the respondents filed a review applic·ation B before the Special Court seeking review of the order dated 4.11.1997. The respondents subsequently filed the applications before the Special Court for fresh declaration that they were the owners. The Special Court dismissed the said applications. The High Court allowed C the writ petitions filed by the respondents and directed the Special Court to decide the applications afresh on merits, as in the opinion of the High Court, the applications req
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.