YADAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 01-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 601 : 2023 INSC 664
601
CASE DETAILS
YADAIAH AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4835 of 2023)
AUGUST 01, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In the instant appeal, the resumption order 
concerning the assignment of non-occupied land in the 1960s to landless 
scheduled caste/scheduled tribe persons for the purpose of cultivation which 
was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court is challenged; as also 
pertains to the issues of law concerning res judicata, nature of assignment 
and violation of conditions of assignment.
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 
1977 – Assignment/Alienation of government land – Assignment 
of non-occupied land to landless scheduled caste/scheduled tribe 
persons – Assignees alienated the land to one through General Power 
of Attorney, who in turn sold the land to subsequent purchasers – 
Resumption order, resuming the subject land in favour of the State 
since assignees sold the land in contravention of the conditions of 
the assignment – High Court set aside resumption order as well the 
fi rst SCN issued to assignees by the Collector proposing to cancel 
the assignment of land – Issuance of second SCN that the assigned 
land could not be sold as per the 1977 Act, thus, the land be resumed 
into government possession – Second SCN culminated into another 
resumption order – Single Judge of the High Court held that the 
proceedings emanating from the Second SCN barred by the principle 
of res judicata and abuse of process of law and that the assignments 
were governed by the Laoni Rules of 1950 instead by the GOM 1122 
– However, the Division Bench allowed in favour of State upholding 
the second resumption order – Correctness:
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
602
Held: Proceedings emanating out of the Second SCN were valid – 
Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions 
of the 1977 Act – Appellants-assignees had transferred the subject land in 
contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and thus, the resultant resumption 
order is valid – Appellants not entitled to any compensation on account of 
the requisition of the assigned land – Furthermore, an important security 
agency currently occupies the subject land, thus, invocation of powers u/
Art. 142 and certain directions issued – Subject land in its entirety declared 
to have vested in the State Government – Constitution of India – Art. 142 
- Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 – ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras 
40-42,
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 
1977 – Assignment of government land – Applicability of doctrine res 
judicata or constructive res judicata – Proceedings emanating out of the 
Second SCN, if barred by the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res 
judicata as said issues already decided by the prior judgment of High 
Court emanating from the First SCN – Plea that the substratum of both 
the fi rst Show cause notice (SCN) and second SCN essentially identical:
Held: Only such determinations which are fundamental would result in 
the application of the doctrine of res judicata – Only those fi ndings, without 
which the Court cannot adjudicate a dispute and also form the vital cog 
in the reasoning of a defi nite conclusion on an issue on merits, constitute 
res judicata between the same set of parties in subsequent proceedings – 
However, in the process of arriving at a fi nal conclusion, if the Court makes 
any incidental, supplemental or non–essential observations which are not 
foundational to the fi nal determination, the same would not tie down the 
hands of courts in future – On a plain reading of the High Court’s order in 
conjugation with the application of the test formulated for distinguishing 
between a fundamental or collateral determination, it is found that the 
observation in respect of General Power of Attorney in the said order was 
indeed a mere collateral fi nding – Doctrine of constructive res judicata will 
also not be applicable as the issues raised in the Second SCN were never 
adjudicated upon in the fi rst place – Thus, the proceedings emanating out 
of the Second SCN are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata or the 
extended doctrine of constructive res judicata – Doctrines/Principles – 
603
Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 – ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras 
40-42, 43, 45, 47 and 48]
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohib

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