STATE OF A.P. versus SMT. PRAMEELA MODI AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 30-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF A.P. 
v. 
SMT. PRAMEELA MODI AND ORS 
OCTOBER 30, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Land-Title to-Sethwar issued in 1947 by erstwhile Nizam Government 
showing impugned lands in name of claimant and mutation done in revenue 
C records accordingly-Same confirmed in 1964 by Director of Settlements, 
Survey and Land Records, in 1968 in a proceeding before Board of Revenue 
and by State Government in 1968-Writ petition for implementation of orders 
in these proceedings allowed in 1975 and in contempt arising thereform, 
State Government gave undertaking to Court in 1997 to implement them-
Town Survey Records in 1976 showed impugned lands as belonging 
D Goverment Proceedings against claimant to declare tier encroacher set aside 
and permission granted by Survey Settlement and Land Records office for 
correction of entries in Town Survey Land register in favour of 
claimant-Thereafter, show cause notice issued to claimant for cancellation 
of those entries and land grabbing case initiated against them-Both set 
aside by High Court-Correctness of- Held-Claimant from inception 
E continued to be in possession of impugned lands as owner-As Town Survey 
howing impugned land as Government land was prior to undertaking given 
by State Government in contempt proceedings, it was impermissible for them 
to state that those lands were Government lands. As orders of Nizam authority 
were legally binding upon statutory authorities of successive Governments, 
F issue could not be reopened either in facts or in law at distance of time-
As issues of location, title, possession and subsequent sales settled long back 
by proceedings at various levels including Government, after a long 
time, it was not open to Government to re-agitate same issue both on the 
principles of res judicata and estoppe/. 
G 
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 8 
and J 5-Specia/ Court-Jurisdiction of-Held-As they can play role of 
Civil Court and decide disputed question of title and possession, their extent 
of jurisdiction was wide-All specific situations envisaged by and under the 
Act were triable by them-Condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by 
If 
822 
ST ATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI 
823 
them was that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act of land A 
grabbing Civil Courts are barred from t1:ving mailers which fall within 
exclusive jurisdiction of these Courts constituted under the Act. 
Appeal to Supreme Court-Grounds-Property dispute Sheet anchor of 
case projected for first time before Court on basis of physical location of 
impugned land and bullressed by a new map-No reason given as to why B 
that map was no/ filed before any of Courls below in a liligation five decades 
old -Nothing staled as to wherefrom that map originaled-Held-Map was 
blatantly false and submissions based thereon rejected especially as the map 
was directly contrary to undispuled authenticated site map on record. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Scope of Findings of fact C 
reached by inferior Court/Tribunal as a resull of appreciation of evidence 
cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings -High Court in exercise 
of its power under Art. 226 cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and 
indulge in re-apprecialion or evalualion of evidence. 
Respondent No. 1, finding discrepancy in survey numbers assigned to D 
the impugned lands, approached authorised department of the then Nizam 
Government, who after due enquiry, issued a supplementary sethwar in the 
year 1947 whereby those lands were shown in her name and mutation in 
revenue records was also done accordingly. This was confirmed in the year 
1964 by Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, in 1965 in a E 
proceeding before Board of Revenue and also by Government memo in 1968. 
Writ petition of respondent No. l for implementation of orders in these 
proceedings was allowed by High Court on 28-8-1975. In Contempt case 
arising from non-implementation of this order of High Court, appellant-State 
Government gave undertaking on 7-2-1997 to implement the orders in 
aforesaid proceedings. However, a Gazette Notification of the Town Survey F 
Records dated 25.9.1976 showed those lands as belonging to Government But 
proceedings against respondent No. 1 under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing 
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 to declare her as an encroacher were set aside by 
Joint Collector on 28-8-1993, and accordingly permission wa

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