TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called, "Act 1982"), dismissing the review application No. 397/2005 in LGC No. 76/1996 and in LGCSR 357/2005. 4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present cases are as under :- (A) V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother (vendors) had a huge chunk of land and a part of it could have been the subject matter of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act 1976). The said vendors entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.01.1976 for selling a part of the land (hereinafter called `suit land') to a cooperative society namely, Gruha Lakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called, "the Society"). The vendors, V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother executed a sale deed in favour of A. Sambashiva Rao (hereinafter called the appellant/applicant) which was registered on 21.05.1980 vide document No. 4758/80 and the appellants were put in possession of the suit land. (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to implement the order dated 4.11.1997. (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 appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The respondents have raised the issue of the identification of the suit land. Thus, the applications filed by the respondents were maintainable and the High Court has rightly reversed the orders passed by the Special Court. The appeals lack merit and no interference is warranted by this Court. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, there is a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/applicant dated 21.05.1980 and there may be an agreement to sell in favour of the society dated 23.01.1976. It is settled legal proposition that an agreement to sell does not create any right, or title in favour of the intending buyer. The Society did not file suit for specific performance against the vendors prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant/applicant on 21.05.1980. The Special Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant/applicant was the owner and was in actual physical possession of the land and that the respondents had grabbed the said land. The Special Court has observed as under :- "In the cross-exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by a non-speaking order, the main order was confirmed by the Court. Thereafter, the power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal as it would be "deleterious to the judicial discipline". 11. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (1995) 2 Scale 23; Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust Vs. Swami Prakasananda & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3277; K. Ajit Babu & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 473; and Gopabandhu Biswal Vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1872. 12. In Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm & Anr. Vs. K. Santhakumaran & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1486, a three Judge Bench of this Court considered the issue afresh and held that filing of the review petition after dismissal of the special leave petition by it against the self-same order amounted to an abuse of process of the court and the entertainment of such a review application was in affront to its order and it was subversive of judicial discipline. 13. In Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587, a three Judge Bench of this Court reconsidered the issue and all above referred judgments and came to the conclusion that dismissal of special leave petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. 14. The Court came to the conclusion that where the matter has been decided by a non-speaking order in limine the party may approach the High Court by filing a review petition. Similar view has been reiterated in National Housing Coop. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 149. 15. In K. Raja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court to that extent is liable to be set aside. 19. So far as the other application filed by the respondents before the Special Court is concerned, it is based on the grounds that earlier judgment and order had been obtained by the appellant/applicant suppressing material facts and the suit land had not been identified properly, and therefore, the judgment of the Special Court duly affirmed by the High Court stood vitiated. Fraud/Misrepresentation: - 20. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay 1956 All. E.R. 349), the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything." 21. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170). 26. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836). 27. In kinch Vs. Walcott (1929) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court. In this regard, the Special Court in execution proceedings was fully satisfied regarding the identity of land on the basis of revenue record and came to the conclusion that there was no mis-representation or fraud on the part of the appellant/applicant. The order of the Special Court dated 11th July, 2006 made it clear that all these issues had been agitated in earlier proceedings. The Special Court has held as under: "The applicants herein as contended in this L.G.C. have filed IA No.869/2002 for stay of proceedings and IA No. 861/2002 for summoning the record in File No.B/9815/97 from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground of alleged fraud played by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Surveyor. Those petitions were heard at length and were dismissed holding that the alleged fraud as contended by the applicants herein was not made out and the property which is the subject matter of L.G.C. No.76/96 should be delivered to the respondents herein by evicting the applicants. As mentioned already, in execution of the said order, applicants herein were evicted and possession was delivered to the respondents. Admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prescribed under the law. (Vide Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 PC 124; Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 620; Ram Ratan Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1977 SC 619; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 872; and Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Mrs. Shobha Vankat Rao AIR 1989 SC 2097) . 35. In Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh AIR 1995 SC 1377, this Court observed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is based on the principle that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession except against the true owner and purports to protect a person in possession from being dispossessed except in due process of law. 36. Even the State authorities cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. The authorities cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of the rule of law. Government can resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law and not otherwise. (Vide Bishan Das Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1570; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. (supra); State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 997; and State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossession. (ii) Prior to the execution of the said sale deed there has been an agreement to sell dated 23.1.1976 in favour of the Society. (iii) In respect of the said agreement to sell the litigation remained pending before the Civil Court but there is nothing on record to show as to what had been its outcome. (iv) An agreement to sell did not confer any right on the Society, though the appellant acquired the title over the suit land by execution and registration of the sale deed dated 21.5.1980. (v) The respondents had not been the members of the Society nor Society made any allotment in their favour. (vi) Before the Special Court, the respondents could not show as under what circumstances they could stake their claim on the suit land and no document worth the name could be shown which may link them to the suit land. (vii) Respondents grabbed the suit land forcibly and raised a construction without any authorisation. (viii) In spite of our repeated queries, learned counsel for the respondents could not point out a single document on record to show that they could have any right, interest or title in the suit land. (ix) The litigation completed several rounds before the Hi....