*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD +W.P. No.10666 of 2003 % 14th June 2007 # K. Sudershan Reddy, S/o late K. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. 13-1-67/13/31-A, Avanthinagar, Hyderabad and 23 others .. Petitioners Vs. $ The Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and 8 others .. Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 : -- ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 4 to 9 : Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy < Gist : Ø Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. 1992 (1) ALT 112 (D.B.) 2. 2003 (5) ALD 679 3. Judgment of this Court in W.P. No.3486 of 2000 dt. 06-12-2000 4. 1993 (1) ALT 204 5. 1995 (2) ALT 84 (D.B.) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P. No.10666 of 2003 Between: K. Sudershan Reddy, S/o late K. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. 13-1-67/13/31-A, Avanthinagar, Hyderabad and 23 others .. Petitioners and The Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and 8 others .. Respondents DATE: 14-06-2007 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Twenty four petitioners filed the writ petition with leave challenging the threatened dispossession from their house properties in survey No.18-A of Bobbuguda, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in pursuance of the judgment and decree in L.G.C. No.166 of 1999 dated 28-03-2003 of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and also to set aside the judgment and decree and direct the respondents not to interfere with their possession. The writ petitioners claimed that they purchased house plots ranging from 200 square yards to 500 square yards under agreements of sale and unregistered sale deeds from Samad Khan Ghouri, Syed Akther and Mohd. Farooq Hussain who in turn purchased the land from Hameed Begum and Muneeba Begum, daughters of Mohd. Habeebulla, brother of Sibgatullah, in 1984. The land purchased by the petitioners is surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and some of the writ petitioners approached the Special Officer and Competent Authority for invoking the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.455, dated 29-07- 2002 for allotment under Section 23 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The petitioners are ready to pay the penalty for getting such allotment, but their request could not be entertained due to some pending litigation, of which the petitioners are not aware. On 04-06-2003 the officials of the Revenue Divisional Office and Mandal Revenue Office, respondents 4 to 9 and some police force came to the houses of the petitioners and informed that in the light of the decision of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad holding respondents 4 to 9 to be the owners of survey No.18-A, the petitioners should vacate and hand over possession to respondents 4 to 9, failing which they will be dispossessed. The petitioners are unaware of L.G.C. No.166 of 1999 and they could ascertain with difficulty that respondents 4 to 9 filed the case against 13 persons who did not choose to contest the case, on which respondents 4 to 9 were declared as the owners. The writ petitioners are not bound by the judgment obtained in collusion, to which they were not parties and respondents 4 to 9 are making heavy monetary demands under threat of dispossession. The petitioners constructed their houses in 1996, investing more than Rs.3.00 to Rs.5.00 lakhs each and either are residing in or leased out about 40 houses. The houses are assessed to property tax since several years and respondents 4 to 9 have no right, title or interest over the land in survey No.18-A. The judgment in rem rendered by the Special Court has to adjudicate all relevant questions irrespective of any contest or otherwise and has to be set aside to give an opportunity of contest to the petitioners. The schedule land being Ac.2-17 guntas in an urban area, the Special Court should have considered whether respondents 4 to 9 should have been declared as owners of such a vast extent in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and whether the land is a surplus land. Respondents 4 to 9 who did not file any documents of title, had no evidence except some entries in revenue records relied on. The decree cannot be executed against the petitioners on erroneous findings and hence, the writ petition. In the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 4 to 9, it was contended that they are the children of Sibgatullah. The petitioners did not file any copies of agreements of sale or unregistered sale deeds relating to petitioners 5 to 14 and 16 to 24. The Xerox copies of four agreements of sale filed are inadmissible in evidence. No link documents or original documents of the vendors were filed. The agreements filed relate to survey No.18 and not survey No.18/A. The petitioners cannot become owners without sale deeds and their vendors purchased from Hameeda Begum and Muneeba Begum under an agreement of sale dated 24-02-1984. They filed O.S. No.568 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District for a declaration about their agreement of sale, which was decreed on 01-11-1996. Then respondents 4 to 9 filed O.S. No.54 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the vendors of the petitioners and their vendors for cancellation of the said decree and for a consequential injunction and that suit was decreed on 27-10-2004. No appeal was filed against the said decree and judgment and the petitioners who claimed under their vendors are bound by the said judgment and decree. Hameeda Begum and Muneeba Begum and others filed O.S. No.19 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition against respondents 4 to 9 and others including for the land in survey No.18-A and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 01-11-1999. Respondents 4 to 9 filed L.G.C. No.166 of 1999 alleging grabbing of Ac.2-14½ guntas in survey No.18-A by respondents 1 to 13 and that the land belonged to and was in possession of Sibgatullah from 1949 till his death in 1965 and respondents 4 to 9 from 1965 till the land grabbing. The petitioners were not in possession on 12-10-1999 when L.G.C. No.166 of 1999 was filed and the Special Court obtained the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short “the Rules”) and the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report supporting the contentions of respondents 4 to 9 and mentioning that some respondents constructed houses and some were under construction. Form-II(A) notice was also given by the Special Court by publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette which is public notice and the petitioners cannot claim want of notice. The petitioners who did not implead themselves cannot maintain a writ petition and the decision on fact or title cannot be disputed in the writ petition more so when the respondents in L.G.C. No.166 of 1999 suffered judgment in spite of the order of the Special Court in I.A. No.1163 of 1999 dated 27-07-2000 that any construction will be subject to the result of the main case. The petitioners claiming to be interested in the land are bound by the judgment of the Special Court by virtue of Section 8 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”) and the petitioners guilty of laches in spite of the case being pending for about four years, cannot claim title. Respondents 4 to 9 filed declaration under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act claiming that the Act has no application to the agricultural lands and filed W.P. No.10624 of 2005 against the contrary decision of the Competent Authority. The petitioners could have applied under G.O. Ms. No.455 as it was open to them to contend that the judgment in land grabbing case is not binding on them. No notification under Section 10 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was published in respect of the subject land. Hence, respondents 4 to 9 sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that the writ petitioners who were not given any notice in spite of being persons interested being the possessors under agreements of sale or unregistered sale deeds since much prior to the filing of the land grabbing case, are not bound by the impugned judgment and decree and are entitled to the reliefs claimed. The learned counsel brought to notice that Section 8 (6) of the Act making every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed binding on all persons having interest in such land, had the words “whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court” omitted from it by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987 and hence, the impugned judgment and decree cannot bind the writ petitioners. Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned senior counsel for respondents 4 to 9 strenuously argued that when the Civil Court declared the rights of respondents 4 to 9 against the vendors of the petitioners and their vendors, there remains absolutely no basis for any claim by the petitioners. When the statutory notification and notices were published and issued in the land grabbing case as prescribed, the petitioners cannot claim want of knowledge and before or after the amendment, Section 8 (6) of the Act continues to bind all persons having interest in the land with the findings of the Special Court about title and possession. The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that the writ petition does not lie. The questions that arise for consideration are, therefore, whether the third parties making independent claims to the subject land and whose predecessors-in-title were not parties to the land grabbing case, are bound by the judgment and decree in the land grabbing case and are liable to be proceeded against. The scope and effect of Section 8 (6) of the Act in such a contingency determine the answer to the questions. Section 8 (6) of the Act as it originally stood is as follows: (6) Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court. By Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987 with effect from 18-09-1986, in Sub-section (6) the words “whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court” were omitted and the following provisos were added: “Provided that the Special Court shall, by notification specify the fact of taking cognizance of the case under this Act. Such notification shall state that any objection which may be received by the Special Court from any person including the custodian of evacuee property within the period specified therein will be considered by it; Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee property objects to the Special Court taking cognizance of the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further with the case in regard to such property; Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquiry to satisfy itself about the persons likely to be interested in the land”. While Section 8 of the Act deals with procedure and powers of the Special Courts, Section 7-A inserted in the Act by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987 deals with Special Tribunals and their powers, etc. and Sub-section (4) thereof is in pari materia with Section 8 (6) as amended. I n New Jaji Labour Society v. Haji Abdul Rahaman Sahab[1], Section 8 (6) of the Act was under consideration among other things and though the judgment was rendered later to the amendment of Section 8 (6) of the Act by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987, the amendment omitting the words “whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court” was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that from the aims and objects of the Act it is evident that the activity of land grabbing which is sought to be prohibited by the Act is not only by the individual, but also by the societies whether incorporated or not and the individuals who encroach and remain on the land are not constant but variables. As they change from time to time, it is very difficult for any person or authority to implead them as eo nomine. The Division Bench, hence, held that it is for this reason sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Act provides that every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land, whether or not, such persons are parties before the Special Court. In that case, the trespassers were claimed to be a society, its members and successors-in- interest. The society represented by its President and Secretary was the respondent. No plea was taken that the members of the society or the office bearers are not in possession or that those who are in possession, are not impleaded as parties. It was found by the Division Bench that the President and Secretary of the society have been instrumental in grabbing the lands in question and those who are in possession of the land grabbed by the society are its members and therefore, the judgment was held to be binding on all those who have occupied the land grabbed. Apart from not taking into consideration the effect of the omission of the words “whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court” from Section 8(6) and addition of three provisos to it, repelling the contention that the alleged encroachers were not parties to the proceedings, was due to the society represented by the President and the Secretary being a party and the society alone being instrumental for the land grabbing by the society and its members who are in possession. That was not a case of a third party or any predecessor-in-interest of the third party being not parties to the land grabbing case and claiming to be not bound by the finding of land grabbing by any person with whom they had no concern. The question again fell for consideration in Mullapudi Satyam and others v. Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District[2]. Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao noted that the intention of the legislation in defining ‘land grabber’ under Section 2(d) and ‘land grabbing’ in Section 2(e) in a broadest language possible is reflected in Section 7-A (4) and Section 8 (6). Repelling the contention that Section 7-A (4)/Section 8(6) must be given a restricted meaning, the learned Judge observed that omission of the words “whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court” by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987 does not make any difference in the plain meaning of Section 8(6) of the Act and observed that whatever be the hardship caused, the Court should give literal interpretation when the plain meaning is clear, unless it results in absurdity. Consequently, it was held that Section 7-A (4)/Section 8(6) only mean that whether persons are parties before the Special Court or Special Tribunal, when once the Special Tribunal or Special Court determines the title or ownership of the land grabbed, the same is binding on all the persons claiming interest in such land. The learned Judge referred to New Jaji Labour Society’s case (1 supra) and held the judgment and decree to be binding on the writ petitioners before him. The learned Judge also referred to the earlier judgment of this Court between same parties in W.P. No.3486 of 2000[3] wherein the Division Bench observed that since the petitioners are not parties to the judgment in L.G.O.P. No.335 of 1983, dated 27-10-1986, it will not bind the petitioners and if the petitioners are entitled to the property covered by the judgment and be in possession of the same, the petitioners can work out their legal remedies by way of private law review and seek declaration, injunction or damages as the case may be to suit their grievances, but interpreted that the second part of Section 7-A (4)/Section 8(6) is that every judgment of the Special Tribunal/Special Court regarding title and ownership of any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land and hence, the observations of the Court to the effect that the judgment in L.G.O.P. will not bind the petitioners, only mean that the finding with regard to the act of land grabbing which would attract penal consequences as per the provisions of the said Act, is left open giving liberty to the petitioners to seek legal remedies by way of private law remedy seeking declaration and damages and that by reason of the second part of Sub-section (4) of Section 7-A/Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Act, the determination by the Special Tribunal/Special Court as to title and ownership is binding on all the persons having interest in such land. The learned Judge observed in para 19 that when once the land is declared as grabbed by the non-owners, all the persons claiming through such non-owners are bound by the determination given by the Special Tribunal/Special Court. In the case before His Lordship, the petitioners were admittedly members of New Jaji Labour Society against which the L.G.O.P. was filed and their attempts to question the judgment and decree in L.G.O.P. were unsuccessful on a number of occasions right from the decision reported in 1992 (1) ALT 112 (D.B.) (1 supra). To appreciate the scope and effect of Section 8(6)/Section 7-A (4), the provisions of the statute and the statutory rules need a closer examination. The definition of ‘land grabber’ under Section 2 (d) of the Act meaning a person or group of persons who commits land grabbing and including any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts, also includes the successors-in-interest of such persons only. The definition does not ex facie appear to include persons acting or claiming independent of the persons defined to be land grabbers or their successors in interest. Under the first proviso to amended Section 8(6)/inserted Section 7-A (4), the Special Court/Special Tribunal shall cause a notification published specifying the fact of taking cognizance of the land grabbing case and inviting objections from any person including the custodian of evacuee property within the period specified therein. Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes such notice in Form-II (A) or Form-II (B) to be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette by the Special Court/Special Tribunal respectively. The prescribed forms refer to notice being given to whomsoever it may concern and any person intending to object being at liberty to submit his objections. But significantly, the first proviso to Section 7-A (4)/Section 8(6) or Rule 7 or Forms-II (A) and II (B) do not refer to “persons having interest in such land”. The third proviso to Section 7-A (4)/Section 8(6) prescribes that the Special Tribunal/Special Court shall cause a notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquiry to satisfy itself about the persons likely to be interested in the land. Rule 8 of the Rules prescribes notice in Form-III (A) or Form-III (B) by the Special Court/Special Tribunal respectively to the persons known or believed to be interested in the land and in contrast with the notice to any person under Rule 7 of the Rules given by publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, the notices under Rule 8 to the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, have to be personally served in the manner provided by Rule 10 thereof. When Section 8(6)/Section 7-A (4) states that every judgment of the Special Court/Special Tribunal with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land, the reference to ‘all persons having interest in such land’ can, in the ordinary and natural course, only be a reference to ‘any person known or believed to be interested in the land’ to whom a notice under Rule 8 is given after a summary enquiry by the Special Court/Special Tribunal about the persons likely to be interested in the land. The same cannot be a reference to any person referred to in the first proviso to Section 8(6)/Section 7-A (4) or Rule 7, as otherwise there was no need to duplicate the notices under the first proviso and the third proviso to Section 8(6)/Section 7-A (4) and Rules 7 and 8. The two provisos and the two rules must have been intended to operate in respect of different classes of persons and if the judgment of the Special Court/Special Tribunal on title or ownership or lawful possession of a land were to be made binding on any and every person irrespective of other considerations, the same would have been clearly reflected in the language of the provision. The advised omission of the words “whether or not such persons are parties before the Special Court” by Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1987 from the original Section 8 (6) of the Act and non- inclusion of such words in Section 7-A (4) at the time of its insertion, must also have been to make such effect and consequence clear. The addition of the three provisos to Section 8(6) and insertion of identical provisos in Section 7-A (4) providing for different manner of notices to distinct classes of persons must have been intended only to achieve such object and purpose. The third proviso stipulating a summary enquiry to identify the persons likely to be interested in the land while making it mandatory to cause notices served on persons known or believed to be interested in the land makes the legislative intention amply clear to restrict the hitherto unbridled scope of the second part of Section 8(6) in tune with the basic principles of natural justice and fundamental prerequisites of accepted judicial procedures and norms. This must be so, is also evident from the schedule to the Act, which shall constitute the guidelines for interpretation and implementation of the Act as per Section 17-B of the Act. The schedule mentions with reference to this aspect that it is common knowledge that one of the well known methods of defeating the just claims of a decree holder is by setting up third parties in a fresh litigation alleging that the third parties were not parties to the earlier proceedings and so they were not bound by the decree. It was stated that to surmount this, it was felt necessary that a notification should be issued by the Special Court specifying the factum of taking cognizance of any case under the Act so that the said notification may serve as notice