HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NOs.15776 & 15792 of 2010 Dt.06-07-2010 W.P.No.15776 of 2010: Tirupati Plastic, Katedhan village, R.R. District. …………Petitioner and The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and another. …………….Respondents W.P.No.15792 of 2010: Mohammed Abdul Waheed Khan …………Petitioner and The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and another. …………….Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NOs.15776 & 15792 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per VE,J) Both the writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 23-06- 2010 in I.A. (S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 on the file of Special Court under Andhra Pradesh land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for brevity ‘the Special Court). 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.15776 of 2010 is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.15792 of 2010 and also 5th respondent in I.A. (S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009. The petitioner in W.P.No.15792 is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.15776 of 2010 and also applicant in I.A. (S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the petitioners are hereinafter referred to as 5th respondent and applicant as they were arrayed in I.A. (S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009. 4. Before the Special Court, the applicant and the 5th respondent jointly filed an application in I.A.( S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 under Rule 3 Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), along with a memo to record compromise in the L.G.C. as per the terms of memo of compromise. The Special Court dismissed the said application by impugned order dated 23-06-2010. Against the same order, the applicant as well as the 5th respondent have filed these two writ petitions separately. 5. Before dealing with the contentions raised by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is just and appropriate to analyze the facts of the case, in brief, as follows: The applicant filed L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 through his General Power of Attorney Holder (GPA) against the respondents therein stating that the applicant is the absolute owner of the land in Sy. No.48/23 to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas situated in Katedhan village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrtict, referred to as schedule ‘A’ property, having purchased vide registered sale deed dated 09-07-2008 from its lawful owners and out of the said land, the respondents have illegally grabbed about 2000.00 square yards, referred to as ‘B’ schedule property, within the specified boundaries, and have raised the wall, and some of them have fixed gates without any legal entitlement and without any lawful title. It is stated that the applicant has filed an application for survey and demarcation and for fixing of the stones again, as the earlier stones were not visible and as he was in the United States of America (USA), his GPA attended the survey on 21-02-2009 and found that the respondents have illegally grabbed ‘B’ schedule property, raised the wall, and some of them have fixed the gates without any legal entitlement and without any lawful title. When the GPA of the applicant raised objection, the respondents stated that, as per “Vasthu”, they have raised the walls and fixed the gates on their eastern side, and are using the application schedule land for their ingress and egress. The 1st respondent also has taken electric H.T. Cables from inside the land of applicant and also installed electric transformer and poles. The applicant has filed rough sketch plan of the ‘B’ schedule property. The respondents without any manner or title, illegally grabbed said property. Hence, the respondents shall be declared as the land grabbers within the meaning of A.P. Land Grabbing and (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for brevity ‘the Act’). It is stated that the applicant has also filed sketch plan of the ‘A’ schedule property showing the south as road, and sketch plan of the ‘B’ schedule property towards west. Before taking cognizance, the Tahsildar, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrtict, filed a report under Rule 6 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) on 23-07-2009, along with a copy of location sketch of the schedule property. 6. After taking cognizance, the respondents 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit stating that they are not the land grabbers and the property in their occupation is purchased by them under various sale deeds and the property purchased by the applicant is within the specified boundaries and they have not grabbed or encroached the land of the applicant. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.S.R.No.1231 of 2010 under Order 15 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to pronounce the judgment and pass a decree insofar as the 5th respondent is concerned, by stating that the Tahsildar, submitted his report dated 23-07-2009 conforming the averments of the applicant with regard to the occupation of the land by the 5th respondent and in fact, the 5th respondent has filed a memorandum dated 20-07-2009 in the L.G.C. admitting that he is in possession of the land belonging to the applicant and he further undertook that he would demolish the compound wall raised by him and handover the excess land in possession to the applicant and he will not use the open land of the applicant lying on the eastern side of the property and that after handing over the possession, he would not have any objection for the applicant to raise compound wall in the said land in question. It is stated that the said specific admission and undertaking of the 5th respondent is not in issue with the application on any question of fact or law in the L.G.C. Therefore, the ingredients required under Rules 1 and 2 and Order 15 CPC are satisfied for the Court to pronounce the judgment and pass a decree and accordingly requested to pronounce the judgment and pass a decree insofar as admission of the 5th respondent is concerned. The said petition was dismissed by the Special Court by order dated 31-03-2010. 8. Against the said order in I.A.S.R.No.1231 of 2010 in the said L.G.C., the petitioner filed W.P.No.7900 of 2010. It is stated that during pendency of the said writ petition, the 5th respondent found it difficult to surrender the said land in favour of the applicant as agreed in memorandum dated 20-07-2009. Therefore, the 5th respondent has offered to purchase the said land in his occupation and the applicant agreed for the same and accordingly both of them have entered into the compromise dated 29-05- 2010 and consequently filed I.A. (S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording the said compromise. 9. Thereafter, the Registry returned the said application on 02-06- 2010 with certain objections stating that the notice has to be served on all the counsel and a memo has to be filed to that effect and also a clarification as to how the said compromise is maintainable, when a similar application in I.A. (S.R.) No.1231 of 2010, filed by the same petitioner, was dismissed on 31- 03-2010, and the said petition was resubmitted on 07-06-2010 for recording the compromise between the petitioner and the 5th respondent stating that the other respondents are not either necessary or proper parties to the said petition, and therefore, they are not made parties and no notice need to be served on the other respondents and the earlier dismissal of the I.A.S.R. No.1231 of 2010 is filed under Order 15 Rules 1 and 3 for passing the judgment and decree against the 5th respondent in view of the admission vide its memo dated 20-07-2009, whereas, the present petition is filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC by both the parties viz., applicant as well as the 5th respondent for recording compromise entered into by them and if the Registry is still not satisfied, he has requested to post the matter before the Court ‘for orders’. After hearing the matter, the Special Court dismissed the same by order dated 23-06-2010. Against which the present writ petition has been filed. 10. In these two writ petitions, the said order has been questioned on various grounds stating that the order of the Special Court is contrary to the judgments of this Court as well as other High Courts and in the proposed compromise petition, the applicant and the 5th respondent are alone proper and necessary parties and there is no question of affecting the interest of other respondents, if the compromise is recorded. It is stated that the order of the Special Court is contrary to law and the respondents 1 to 4 are neither necessary nor proper parties and there is no question of likelihood of affecting respondents 1 to 4, if the compromise is recorded and the Special Court has not assigned any reason as how the recording of compromise will lead multiplicity of proceedings when the respondents 1 to 4 are not the parties to the compromise and however, when the order of the compromise is not binding on the respondents 1 to 4, the impugned order of Special Court is illegal and unsustainable. Even assuming for argument that the respondents 1 to 4 are indirectly or commercially affected by such order of recording compromise, still that itself will not ordain the applicant to implead them as parties in the said application. It is stated that there is no collusion between the parties to compromise and fraud played by them and therefore, refusal to record compromise is illegal and unsustainable. 11. We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel elaborately. 12. A perusal of the concise statement in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 and the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.S.R.No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 3009, filed by the applicant, discloses that the applicant filed the L.G.C. through his GPA against the 5th respondent alleging that the applicant is the owner of an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy. No.48/23 situated at Katedhan village, Ranga Reddy District and one of the boundaries shows that towards south, there is a road and towards north-eastern boundary, there is a land in Sy. Nos.48/24 and 48/23 part and towards north, east and western side, there are boundaries of the land covered by the Sy. No.48/24, 48/23 part, 48/20. It is stated that out of the said land, ‘B’ schedule property, admeasuring 2000 square yards, is grabbed by the respondents 1 to 5. It is stated that the applicant purchased the said land under a sale deed vide document No.5032/2008, dated 09-07-2008 and the applicant has submitted an application dated 16-10-2008 to the Tahsildar, Rajender Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for mutation of the revenue records in respect of the said land and his name was mutated in the revenue records and thereafter, he has filed an application for survey and demarcation for fixing of the stones again, as earlier stones said to have been not visible due to the dumping of garbage in the application schedule land and when the surveyor has been appointed, he has served the notice on the respondents fixing the date of survey. The respondents are the owners of the adjoining neighbouring property of the application schedule land. The Surveyor has fixed the stones. As the applicant was in the USA, his GPA attended the survey on 21-02-2009 and found that the respondents illegally grabbed 2000 square yards of the land out of ‘A’ schedule land which is shown as ‘B’ schedule property. The respondents have raised wall and some of them have fixed the gates without any legal entitlement and without any lawful title to the ‘B’ schedule property. When the GPA raised the objection, the respondents have stated that as per ‘Vaasthu’ they have raised the walls and fixed the gates on their eastern side, and are using the application schedule land for their ingress and egress. The 1st respondent also has taken electrical H.T cables from the inside the land of applicant and also installed electric transformer and poles. As per the sketch plan of the ‘A’ schedule property said to have been filed by the applicant, it shows there is a road towards southern boundary. In respect of ‘B’ schedule property is concerned, he has shown the land said to have been grabbed by the respondents 1 to 5 towards the western side and south is shown as road. The Tahsildar filed a report dated 23-07-2009 stating that there exists 30’ katcha road in an area of 1452 square yards and 494 square yards of the land is under the occupation of the respondents out of 2000 square yards of the land said to be under encroachment by the respondents as stated by the applicant. The Tahsildar, Rajender Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, also stated that the applicant has purchased the schedule property knowingly and there exists katcha road and some part of the land is under occupation of the respondents. A copy of the location sketch of the application schedule property, drawn in accordance with the ground position, was enclosed. 13. As per the sketch plan of the Tahsildar, western side of the applicant’s land is ‘A’ schedule property. There is a 30’ katcha road and thereafter, the land in occupation of respondents 1 to 5 is also shown. It is stated that the 1st respondent is in occupation of 99 square yards, 2nd respondent is in occupation of 85 square yards, 3rd respondent is in occupation of 100 square yards, 4th respondent is in occupation of 110 square yards and 5th respondent is in occupation of 100 square yards, the total extent of the land is 494 square yards in occupation of the respondents 1 to 5. But as per the sketch shown by the applicant, there is no katcha road towards the western side but as per the sketch shown by the Tahsildar, there is a 30’ katcha road and thereafter, the lands in occupation of the respondents is shown as 494 square yards. According to the respondents, they have purchased the property vide separate sale deeds and the land in their occupation is different and purchased from the aforesaid sale deeds. It is therefore stated that they never grabbed the land of the applicant. 14. The respondents 1 to 4 in their counter stated that even according to the sale deed of the applicant, the schedule of the property is shown that there is a road towards the western side and southern side, but the applicant has erroneously shown the boundary in the ‘A’ schedule and ‘B’ schedule properties without showing the existing road on the western side. It is stated that the land in occupation is facing towards western side road. The land in occupation of the respondents 1 to 4 is existing after the western side road and the land in occupation of the respondent and the applicant is divided by 30’ katcha road and therefore they have not encroached any land of the applicant. 15. It may be pointed out about the schedule of the sale deed and the map enclosed to the sale deed relied on by the applicant dated 09-07-2008. By filing L.G.C. he has stated that he has executed after rectifying the deed dated 27-02-2009. According to which, he stated that the boundaries have been rectified stating that western property was shown as part in Sy. No.48/23 and road is shown on the south. But perusal of the concise statement in the L.G.C., would show that there is no reference to the rectification deed at all though the L.G.C. was filed in March 2009 and he has only relied on the sale deed, dated 09-07-2008. 16. On perusal of both the writ petitions, it is clear that they do not state anything about the rectification deed and the boundaries and there is any reply to the counter filed by the respondents 1 to 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents 1 to 4 filed counter mainly based on the sale deed, dated 09-07-2008, without any reference about the rectification deed and the rectification deed is not at all pleaded. When there is no pleading with reference to the rectification deed, the rectification deed cannot be looked into. 17. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the impugned order of the Special Court in rejecting the application in I.A. (S.R.) No.1838 of 2010 in L.G.C.No.34 of 2009 upholding the office objections is justified. 18. The undisputed facts are that earlier the applicant filed an application in I.A. (S.R.) No.1231 of 2010 to pronounce the judgment and pass a decree insofar as the admission made by the 5th respondent and the said application was dismissed on the ground that without hearing the respondents 1 to 4, no decree can be passed against the 5th respondent in the L.G.C. and the possession of the land in occupation of the 5th respondent is not specified. Further, in the Memo of agreement filed by the 5th respondent in the L.G.C. and either in the concise statement or in the ’B’ schedule property, which is a rough sketch enclosed with the application, neither the extent or the dimensions of all the boundaries of the properties in occupation of the 5th respondent are mentioned. The Report of Tahsildar is not a conclusive proof and therefore, the other respondents 1 to 4 shall be made as parties to the said application. Therefore, without making the other respondents as parties to the present application and without hearing them, who were contesting in the L.G.C., no decree can be passed against the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the said petition was rejected for non-impleadment of respondents 1 to 4. The applicant challenged the same in the writ petition W.P.No.7900 of 2010, and the said writ petition is said to have been withdrawn. Thus, we are of the opinion that the earlier in I.A.S.R.No.1231 of 2010 dated 31-03-2010 has become final. 19. It is stated that the defect in the said order has been rectified that since it is not possible for the 5th respondent to surrender the said land in favour of the applicant, and therefore, the applicant and the 5th respondent have agreed to alienate the said property in favour of the 5th respondent and therefore both of them have filed a joint petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording compromise in respect of 100 square yards in Sy. No.48/23 of Kattedhan village within the specified boundaries. It is stated that the boundaries in the said land in occupation of the 5th respondent are shown as; towards South, there is a road, and towards west, there is a part of some premises, but whereas, as per the sketch shown by the Tahsildar, towards west of the applicant property, there is a 30’ katcha raod and thereafter, the property in occupation of the respondents 1 to 5 is shown, and in the said map submitted by the Tahsildar, no road is indicated on the southern side. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no dispute with regard to the land in occupation of the 5th respondent and the boundaries. The specific land in occupation of the respondents 1 to 5 is not at all indicated in the concise statement or in the ‘B’ schedule property or in the rough sketch shown by the applicant. The report as well as the rough sketch shown by the Tahsildar is no way helpful to the case of the applicant and in fact, the report submitted by the Tahsildar indicates that there is a 30’ katcha road on the western side of the applicant property and the applicant purchased the said schedule property knowingly that there exists a katcha road and some part of the land is under the occupation of the respondents. The report shows that there is no grabbing of the land at all. A perusal of the rough sketch map indicates that the applicant purchased the property knowingly fully well that there is existing katcha road and the other respondents are in occupation of the said land before he purchased the said land. Therefore, we are not inclined to express any opinion in this case as the property is in occupation of the 5th respondent is not specifically described either in the concise statement or in the schedule property and it is also not specifically mentioned in the report submitted by the Tahsildar, and that the rough sketch map is also no-way helpful to the facts of the case of the applicant as well as the 5th respondent and the schedule property agreed to be sold to the respondents is not tallying with the property shown in the rough sketch submitted by the Tahsildar vis-à- vis the pleadings in the concise statement and the sketch appended thereto. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property sought to be settled or compromised between the applicant and the 5th respondent. 20. We are of the opinion that unless the respondents 1 to 4 being the contesting parties who alone filed the counter disputing the land of the applicant, and independently claiming a right and title to the said property and also disputing the identity of boundaries of the property, it cannot be said that they are not proper and necessary parties. In fact, on the same grounds, the Tribunal earlier rejected the similar application of the petitioner filed under Order 15 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. but where as the present application is field under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. It is stated that under Order 15 Rule 2 CPC, where there are more defendants than one, and any one of the defendants is not is not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment for or against such defendant and the suit shall proceed only against the other defendants. The parties who are not at issue are only the necessary parties and no final evidence is required to pronounce the judgment. Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed by parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith, so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit. 22. In the instant case, there are no specific pleadings with regard to the extent of land in occupation of particular respondent and their boundaries. Absolutely no pleadings are there in the L.G.C. and in the concise statement with regard to the extent of land and the grievance of the applicant is against the individual respondents. In fact, the report submitted by the Tahsildar is of no help or assistance to the applicant and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no issue or dispute or controversy with regard to the property in occupation of the 5th respondent, which is sought to be settled or compromised between the applicant and the 5th respondent. The