C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  1 of 9    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5645 OF 2006  

M. Durga Singh & Ors.              ......Appellants  

versus  

Yadagiri & Ors.                                  ....Respondents    

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1. The tenacity and stamina  with which the appellants have been  

litigating for decades must be admired, but nothing else.  We will  

subsequently mention the various proceedings instituted by the appellants  

which give us this belief.   

2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to 500 square yards in Survey  

No.87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadapally Mandal, Hyderabad  

District.  This area is said to form a part of the total area in Survey No.87  

approximating acres 0-34 guntas.  The appellants claims to be the owners  

of the land in question while the respondents are said to be land grabbers  

who are liable to be evicted.

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  2 of 9    

3. Suit No.106 of 1967 was filed by the predecessors-in-interest  

against the predecessors of the respondents.  The litigating parties are  

referred, for convenience, as appellants and respondents, regardless of  

who their predecessors in interest were.  In this suit, a claim was made for  

20 square yards of land from Survey No.87.  In the paper book, the extent  

of land appears at one place to be 33.5 square yards.  Be that as it may,  

the suit was dismissed on merits by the Trial Court on 29 th

March, 1975  

and it was held that the appellants had not been able to prove their title to  

the suit land and the boundaries had not been specifically stated. It is  

important to note that one of the findings given by the Trial Court in the  

judgment is that the respondents had a house on the land in dispute.   

4. The appellants later filed OS No.1167 of 1975 for removal of  

encroachment by the respondents on 79.49 square yards of land.  This suit  

was compromised between the parties and disposed of on 18 th  October,  

1979.  As a result of the compromise, the respondents paid an amount of  

Rs.5887.50 to the appellants, who gave up all their claims to the land in  

dispute.   

5. On or about 29 th  June, 1982 the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing  

(Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act) came into force.  Section 8(1)  

of the Act is important and reads as follows:  

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  3 of 9    

“8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:—  

(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by  

any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case  

arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the  

ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed,  

whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such  

orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;”    

6. Notwithstanding the enactment, the appellants filed OS No.991 of  

1987 with respect to 139 square yards said to have been grabbed by the  

respondents.  It was contended before us by learned counsel for the  

appellants that the suit filed by the appellants themselves was not  

maintainable in the civil court in view of the provisions of the Act.  In  

any event, the appellants proceeded with the suit which was dismissed in  

default on 19 th  September, 1991. Thereafter, the appellants filed an  

application for restoration of the suit but even that application was  

dismissed.  We were informed that a revision petition was also dismissed.  

7. The appellants then filed OS No.1095 of 1993 claiming that they  

had an apprehension that the respondents would encroach upon an area of  

369 square yards.  This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court by a  

judgment and decree dated 30 th

September, 2002.    

8. It is recorded in the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court  

in OS No.1095 of 1993 that the appellants had instituted the following  

other proceedings:   

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  4 of 9    

Criminal complaint  

CC 754/67 City  

Magistrate  

Uda Singh  

Vs  

Mallesham  

Dismissed on  

10.6.68  

OS 106/67 on the  

file of IV Asst.  

Judge, CCC Hyd.  

Shambu Singh   

Vs.  

Mallesham  

Permanent  

injunction area of  

land 33.5 sq.ys in  

S.No.87  

Chikkadpally  

Dismissed with  

costs 29.3.75  

A.S.83/75 Appeal       -do-   -do- Dismissed on  

12.10.76  

O.S.1167/75 on the  

file of  VII Asst.  

Judge, CCC Hyd.  

Uda Singh  

Vs.  

Mallesham  

Possession of land  

78.49 sq.yds  

Ended in  

compromise.  Suit  

dismissed on  

18.10.79.   

Possession of defts.  

Admitted.  Existing  

structure not to be  

Disturbed.  

OS 677/80 on the  

file of  IV Asst.  

Judge, CCC Hyd.   

B. Anantha Laxmi  

And  

P. Mallesham  

For perpetual  

injunction  

regarding the Open  

land falling to the  

north of building of  

Mallesham  

Dismissed on  

27.10.84  

OP 227/20 V Addl.  

Judge, CCC   

Hyd.  

Shambu Singh  

And  

Mallesham  

Recovery of land  

128 sq. Ys.   

Petition dismissed  

on 16.3.87   

OS 991/87 on the  

file of III Asst.  

Judge, CCC Hyd.  

  -do- Recovery of 139  

Sq. Ys. in S.No.87  

Lingampally  

Village  

Dismissed on  

19.9.91  

IA 239/92 in OS  

991/87  

For restoration  Dismissed on  

17.9.93    

9. We may mention that the record of the appeal before us shows that  

a couple of other proceedings were also instituted by the appellants  

confirming their status as chronic litigants.   

10. Eventually, the appellants preferred Land Grabbing Case No. 17 of  

1993 before the Special Court established under the Act.  In this case the

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  5 of 9    

contention urged by the appellants was that the respondents had grabbed  

about 500 square yards of land owned by the appellants in Survey No.87.  

The proceedings before the Special Court were dismissed by a judgment  

and order dated 11 th

October, 1994.  

11. Thereafter, the appellants preferred a writ petition in the Andhra  

Pradesh High Court being Writ Petition No.21808 of 1994. This writ  

petition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated  

12 th  December, 2002.  

12. Learned counsel for the appellants urged before us that the  

proceedings instituted by the appellants before the civil court after 1982  

were not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Act and the decree  

passed by the civil court was a nullity.  Therefore, nothing prohibited the  

appellants from approaching the Special Court under the Act.  Reliance  

was placed on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan 1 . It is not necessary to  

delve into this issue.  

13. We can only say that the appellants themselves approached the  

civil court and it is now too late for them to contend that they approached  

the wrong forum.  If the appellants honestly believed that the civil court  

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by them, then the  

proper course of action would have been to withdraw the suits and  

                                                           1   (1955) 1 SCR 117

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  6 of 9    

proceed under the Act.  Instead, as far as OS No. 991 of 1987 is  

concerned, after the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, the  

appellants preferred an application for restoration which was dismissed as  

also perhaps a revision petition.  At least at that point of time, wisdom  

should have dawned upon the appellants that the civil court had no  

jurisdiction in the matter but quite to the contrary, they proceeded with  

the litigation and later instituted some more proceedings in the civil court.     

14. It is quite clear to us that whatever be the position in law, the  

appellants invited trouble either by pursuing the litigation in the wrong  

forum or by not approaching the right forum. For this, the appellants have  

only themselves to blame and cannot hide behind the veil of a lack of  

jurisdiction of the civil court.   

15. That apart, the appellants were given a full-fledged hearing by the  

Special Court under the Act in which the following issues were framed:  

1. Whether the petitioners are the owners of the petition schedule  property?    

2. Whether the respondents are not land grabbers within the meaning  of Act No. 12 of 1982  

3. To what relief.     

         Additional issue framed on 12.09.1994  

Whether the judgments operate as res judicata and whether the  

applicants are estopped from contending that they are the owners  

of the schedule property by virtue of the said judgments?  

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  7 of 9    

16. The Special Court dealt with all these issues and concluded that the  

appellants had failed to establish that they are the owners of the schedule  

property and there was no material to establish their ownership.   It was  

also held that the appellants had not been able to show that the  

respondents had trespassed on the suit property without legal entitlement  

and were therefore land grabbers within the meaning of the Act.   

17. What is more serious is that the Special Court concluded that there  

is no certainty about the land alleged to have been grabbed by the  

respondents. The location of the land was not clear, the area was not  

clearly identified, the description of the land was very vague, no  

measurements of the land were given and the boundaries of the land were  

also not clear.  

18. In this regard, our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the  

respondents to the description of the land allegedly grabbed by the  

respondents as stated in the plaint filed before the Special Court.  The  

extent of the land is described in the following terms:  

11. Extent Land grabbed about 500 sq. yards. of land  with structures out of the land 34 guntas in  

Sy. No. 87 of Lingampally Village,  

Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.  

12. Boundaries North : Petitioner’s Land  South : Narayanguda Bridge/Main Road  

East : Respondents House  

West : Petitioners House

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  8 of 9    

14. Whether there  are any houses  

or structures on  

the land, to  

whom they  

belong.  How  

they were  

secured and  

market value of  

the land  

There are pucca house constructed by late P.  

Malleshem, husband of respondent No. 1 and  

father of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and also  

temporary mulgiee of respondents Nos. 6 to  

13 constructed by the respondents 1 to 5  

unauthorisedly and illegally.  

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in the  

plaint before the Special Court there is a clear admission by the appellants  

that the respondents had a  construction on the land in question which  

was also a finding given in Suit No. 106 of 1967.  

19. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to rely upon a report  

given by the Local Commissioner appointed by the civil court in O.S  

No.1095 of 1993.  The report of the Local Commissioner is dated 17 th   

October, 1993 and was marked as Exhibit A-42.  The report indicates that  

the respondents are in possession of 607 square yards which is about 5  

guntas and the appellants are in possession of 3025 square yards which is  

about 25 guntas.  Essentially, the report of the Local Commissioner does  

not show anything more than this.  We also find that this report was  

exhibited in Suit No.1095 of 1993 but it was not proved in evidence  

before the Special Court or even in Suit No.1095 of 1993. The Local  

Commissioner was not examined with regard to the correctness or  

otherwise of the report.   We also find that exhibit A-42 pertains only to

                C.A. No. 5645 of 2006                                                                                        Page  9 of 9    

139 square yards of the land in question and not 500 square yards.    This  

is quite apart from the fact that if the contention of the appellants is that  

the suits instituted after 1982 are not maintainable, then even the report of  

the Local Commissioner is without jurisdiction.  

20. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the  

Special Court was fully justified in dismissing the land grabbing case  

filed by the appellants and the High Court was also justified in dismissing  

the writ petition filed by them.  We find absolutely no reason to interfere  

with the views expressed and accordingly we dismiss the appeal with  

costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants for taking several courts for a ride  

through continuous and fruitless litigation spanning several decades.      

     ............................................J  

                  (Madan B. Lokur)  

New Delhi ;                ...........................................J  

April 18, 2018                                                   (Deepak Gupta)