Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors

4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present cases are as under :-

(B) The appellant/applicant- vendee filed LGC No. 76/1996 against the respondents under the provisions of the Act, 1982 alleging that he had been working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was mostly out of station, and the respondents had forcibly grabbed his land and raised construction thereon. Thus, he sought the relief of their dispossession and action against them under the provisions of the Act, 1982. (C) After complying with the requirements of the statutory provisions i.e. taking the sanction etc., the respondents were issued a show cause notice. The respondents filed their reply submitting that in respect of the suit land, there was an agreement to sell, dated 23.01.1976, in favour of the society and once such an agreement to sell had been executed, vendors had no right to transfer the land in favour of the appellant/applicant. The society had allotted the suit land in their favour, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.

(D) The Special Court after appreciating the evidence, vide Judgment and order dated 4.11.1997 came to the conclusion that the appellant/applicant was the owner of the suit land and that the respondents had no right, title or claim over the suit land. They had forcibly occupied the land and they were land grabbers, thus, they were liable to be evicted and orders for that purpose were passed.

3 (E) Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court dated 4.11.1997, the respondents preferred writ petition No. 33572/1997 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 3.07.2001.

(F) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the respondents preferred Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18218/2001 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.11.2001 giving liberty to the respondents to file review petition before the High Court. (G) The respondents filed review petition No. 31506/2002 before the High Court. However, the said review petition was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 16.12.2002.

(H) In the intervening period, when the review petition was pending before the High Court, the appellant/applicant filed execution proceedings by moving IA No. 518/2002. The Respondents also moved an application to summon the record of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secundrabad, pertaining to the survey of the suit land along with an application for the stay of Execution proceedings. The Special Court vide order dated 7.11.2002 allowed the Execution Application filed by the appellant/applicant but dismissed the application filed by respondents directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to implement the order dated 4.11.1997. 4 (I) The respondents being aggrieved by the common order dated 7.11.2002, filed writ petition nos. 22953 and 23105 of 2002, which were, dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 17.12.2002. (J) In pursuance of the order in Execution Proceedings dated 7.11.2002, the appellants were put into possession of the suit land on 16.12.2002. (K) The respondents being aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 17.12.2002, preferred review petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed by the Court vide order dated 17.11.2003.

(L) The respondents filed Review Application no. 397/2005 in LGC No. 76 after an inordinate delay, seeking review of the order dated 4.11.1997. The respondents subsequently filed an application in LGCSR No. 357/2005 before the Special Court for fresh declaration that they were the owners and that the appellants, who had succeeded throughout the litigation, were the land grabbers. The respondents in the said application impleaded persons other than the appellant/applicant also, i.e. the vendors of the appellant/applicant and govt. officials etc., who are the other appellants in these cases. The Special Court dismissed the said applications vide orders dated 6.7.2006 and 11.7.2006.

(M) The respondents, being aggrieved by both the orders, filed Writ Petition Nos. 19962 and 19963 of 2006, which have been allowed by the 5 High Court vide impugned Judgment and order dated 26.04.2007, directing the Special Court to decide both the applications afresh on merit, as in the opinion of the High Court, the applications required certain inquiry on factual matters and the claim of the respondents could not have been rejected merely on the determination and attaining finality of orders in earlier proceedings. Hence, these appeals.

17. Thus, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that in case a litigant files a review petition before filing the Special Leave Petition before this Court and it remains pending till the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered. In case it is filed subsequent to dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the process of filing review application amounts to abuse of process of the court. 1

18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that filing of such a review application by the respondents at a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the Court and such an application is not maintainable. Thus, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the review application by the Special Court and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside.

Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a much belated stage may not be sufficient to set aside the judgment procured by perjury.

38. In view of the above factual position, we reach the following conclusions:

(xiii) Respondents filed frivolous application raising the issue of fraud and mis-identification of the suit land which had earlier been adjudicated upon. The review application was filed at much belated stage.

(xv) The respondents had been interested only to protract the litigation by one way or the other.

(xvi) Fresh proceedings taken by the respondents before the Special Court in fact, is tantamount to malicious prosecution.

39. The High Court failed to take all aforesaid factors into consideration before passing impugned judgment and order.

40. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that judgment and order of the High Court impugned herein, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 26.4.2007 is set aside and the judgments and orders dated 6.7.2006 and 11.7.2006 passed by the Special Court are restored. No costs.