OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 08-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 302 
OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 998 of 2007 etc.) 
OCTOBER 8, 2010 
(P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Urban Ceiling Act, 1976: 
C 
ss. 2(q), 6 and 10(3) - 'Vacant land' - HELD: Any land 
not being agricultural land but falling within an urban 
agglomeration constitutes vacant land as defined in s.2(q) -
In the instant case, the lands constituted 'vacant land' on the 
date of filing of declarations u/s 6 by owner in 1978 - The 
land-owners themselves termed the land as 'grazing lands' 
D and 'vacant land' in their declaration u/s 6(1) - The notification 
u/s 10(3) stating that the surplus land would be deemed to 
have been acquired by State Government and the same 
would vest absolutely in it, was issued in 1981 - Proceedings 
under the ULC Act not challenged by owners at any stage, 
E and allowed to become final. 
Judgements: 
Doctrine of Merger - HELD: Once leave was granted by 
F 
Supreme Court in special leave petitions filed against the 
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and the 
consequent appeal is allowed by Supreme Court, in 
Audikesava Reddv's case, the judgment of the Division 
Bench lost its identity and merged with the judgment of 
G Supreme Court and the said judgment of the Division Bench 
of the High Court cannot be relied upon for any purpose. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or. 20 and Or. 41, r.31 - Judgments and decree -
H 
302 
-
OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 
303 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
Judgement - Elements of - Decree - Preparation of -
A 
Requirements - Explained - HELD: Preparation of decree 
follows the judgment - Decree shall agree with the judgment 
- Operative part of the judgment should be so clear and 
precise that in the event of an objection being laid, it should 
not be -difficult to find out by a bare reading of the judgment 
B 
and decr~e whether the latter agrees with the former and is in 
conformity therewith -
In Audikesava Reddv's case, the 
decision of the Supreme Court has been correctly drafted in 
the decree by the Registry and there is no ambiguity therein. 
Res Judicata: 
Constructive res judicata - Writ petitions before High 
Court - Decision of High Court challenged before Supreme 
Court - Matter decided in Audikesava Reddv's case - Later, 
c 
writ petition before High Court raising the issue of the lands 
D 
being agricultural land - HELD: Principle of res judicata/ 
constructive res judicata is applicable to writ proceedings -
·The subsequent writ petitions are barred by principle of 
constructive res judicata - The adjudication in Audikesava 
Reddy's case was in relation to the same property between 
E 
the same parties - The validity of ULC Act was squarely in 
issue - All contentions which p; fies might and ought to have 
litigated in the previous litigation cannot be permitted to be 
raised in subsequent litigations - Urban Land Ceiling Act, 
1976. 
F 
The owners of the land in S\lrvey No. 83 
.,. 
admeasuring 526.07 acres executed a registered General 
Power of Attorney on 7.7.1974 in favour of a partnership 
firm. On coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Land 
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, 
G 
ninety nine acres of the said land was declared as 
surplus in the hands of the four declarants and the 
possession was taken on 11.4.1975. On coming into force 
of the Urban Ceiling Act, 1976, the owners, through their 
GPA, filed declarations u/s 6 (1) of the ULC Act. The affect 
H 
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A of allowing the appeals filed by the State in in Audikesava 
Reddy's case is that the Competent Authority issued 
statements u/s 9 declaring the surplus area with each of 
the declarant, and on 30.1.1980 issued the notification u/ 
s 10 (1). By G. 0. Ms. No. 391 dated 23.6.1980, the Master 
B Plan, as on 17.2.1976, was amended and the land of 
Survey No. 83 was inclu.ded in the Second Master Plan 
w.e.f. 19.9.1980, resultantly, the said land was re-
computed and 468 acres thereof were allotted to the 
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). By 
,.C G.O. Ms No. 733 dated 31.10.19088 read with G. 0. Ms. No. 
289 dated 1.6.1989 and G. 0. Ms. No. 217 dated 18.4.200, 
exemption up to an extent of 5 acres was granted to each 
holder of excess land. Various persons including the 
appellants purchased small extents of the land in Survey 
No. 83 by registered sale deeds between January and 
P March 1991. Howe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.