THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 01-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application Nos. 910-924 of 2019)
In
(Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 3793-3807 of 2018)
In
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5442-5456 of 2015)
OCTOBER 01, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, K. M. JOSEPH AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – The urban
land ceiling proceedings handed certain land to the newspaper
publication – The said proceedings were challenged – Single Judge
of the High Court ordered a survey and held that if after survey,
it is clear that the extent of 8000 sq. mtrs. allotted to the publication
was in fact survey no.129/45/D, the order of allotment would be
set aside – Supreme Court upheld the order of the Single Judge
and ordered demarcation of survey no. 129/45/D – Initial survey
carried out stated no such land in the said survey number existed
– Pursuant thereto, the State requested review of the Supreme Court
judgment – Review petition was filed by the State, however, same
was disposed of with the direction that the report filed was not in
consonance with the order passed by the Supreme Court –
Thereafter, a compliance report was filed with a map appended
thereto – Held: The documents involved in the original civil appeals
disclose the fact that the said property was in rectangular shape
– On perusal of the map appended to the Compliance Report, the
description of the property would accord with TS No. 19/P which
was marked by the letters ‘PQRS’ (rectangular shape) and the same
was allotted to the newspaper publication and plot no.129/45/D
was marked as ‘ABC’ (triangular shape) – The land marked as
‘ABC’ was heavy built up and was of no use to the appellants –
The first survey report wrongly stated that land does not exist –
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 651
651
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
However, the Second report located the land, but not where it
actually existed – Given the extraordinary facts of the case, powers
u/Art. 142 exercised – The second report submitted was rejected
and it was declared that the land which is at survey no. 19/P and
which is marked in the map of the second survey report as ‘PQRS’
is the land that is actually survey no. 129/45/D – This being the
case, the allotment made set aside and newspaper publication
directed to deliver land to the appellants.
Disposing of the applications, the Court
HELD: 1. Ordinarily, this Court would have relegated the
original appellants to challenge the Report that has now been
filed in compliance with Review Order. However, there is a
reluctance on the part of the authorities to part with this land
as it is extremely valuable. This Court has found how, in the
earlier round of proceedings, they have taken various conflicting
stands as to whether the land was originally evacuee property
or otherwise. This Court also finds that in the first Survey that
was done pursuant to the Single Judge’s judgment, there was a
great reluctance to part with this land which is why the aforesaid
Survey Report wrongly stated that such land does not at all exist.
It is only at the repeated insistence of this Court that finally a
Survey Report has now located the land, but not where it actually
exists. The reason is not far to seek - because if, as per the map
appended to the present Report, the land marked A, B, C was
to be handed over to the appellants, it would be land which is
heavily built up and of no use, whatsoever, to the appellants.
[Para 12] [656-E-H]
2.  Therefore, given the extraordinary facts of this case,
this Court does not wish to drive the appellants to one more
round of proceedings and, therefore, in exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the second Report is
rejected and it is declared that the land which is at Survey No.
19/P and which is marked in the map of the second Survey
Report as ‘PQRS’ is the land that is actually Survey No. 129/
45/D. This being the case, it is clear that the allotment made to
newspaper publication must be set aside, and the land be
delivered to the appellants. [Para 13] [657-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
INHERENT/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 910-924 of 2019 in Review Petition (c)
Nos. 3793-3807 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5442-5456 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2019 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in Review Petition (C) Nos.3793-3807 of 2018
Mahesh Jethmalani, P. Raghuram, K. Radhakrishnan,
Dushyant A

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