Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24324 of 2008)

M/S. BHARAT FABRICATORS & ORS.   … APPELLANT(S)

:Versus:

SPL. COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING  (PROHIBITION) ACT & ORS.       …    RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6410 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24325 of 2008)

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.   

1. Leave granted in both the matters.

2. These  appeals,  by  special  leave,  are  directed  against  the

judgments  and  order  dated  30.04.2007  and  29.10.2007

passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in

W.P.  No.25273  of  1999  and  Review  W.P.  Misc.  Petition

Page 2

2

No.26665 of 2007, respectively, whereby the High Court has

dismissed the writ petition as also the Review Petition filed by

the appellants herein.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.3 herein,

namely, Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, originally filed O.P. No.552 of

1988  before  the  Special  Tribunal,  Ranga  Reddy  District,

against  eight  persons,  including  the  Cooperative  Industrial

Estate Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad, for declaration of title

in respect of schedule property and for recovery of the same by

declaring  Respondent  Nos.1  to  7  therein  as  land  grabbers.

The  said  application  was  allowed  by  the  Special  Tribunal.

However, the claim for compensation was dismissed. Out of

seven  contesting  respondents  in  the  said  application,

Respondent  Nos.1,  2  &  5  to  7  filed  an  appeal  before  the

Special Court (L.G.A. No.37 of 1993) assailing the order of the

Special Tribunal.

4.  The applicant  of  O.P.  No.552 of  1988 also  filed an appeal

(L.G.A. No.43 of 1993) qua that part of the order whereunder

his claim for compensation was dismissed.  Both the appeals

were heard together and by means of a common order dated

Page 3

3

29.04.1994, the Special Court set aside the judgment of the

Special  Tribunal  and  remitted  the  matter  back  for  fresh

disposal, giving liberty to the parties to adduce evidence.

5. Thereafter, further evidence was adduced on either side and

after  conducting  fresh  enquiry,  the  Special  Tribunal  again

allowed the petition declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 before it

as  land  grabbers  and  directed  them  to  deliver  vacant

possession  of  the  land  to  the  applicant.  However,  the

applicant’s  claim  for  compensation  was  negatived.  The

contesting Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 to 7 again filed an appeal

before  the  Special  Court  (L.G.A.  No.21  of  1998)  and  the

applicant  filed  cross-objections.  The  Special  Court  by  its

judgment dated 27.09.1999 dismissed the appeal as also the

cross-objections.   

6. The appellants herein, who were not parties either before the

Special  Tribunal  or  before  the  Special  Court,  filed  a  writ

petition  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Andhra

Pradesh,  being  Writ  Petition  No.25273  of  1999,  for  a

declaration that the orders of the Special Tribunal as well as

the Special Court are not applicable to their industrial units,

Page 4

4

maintaining that  they had been in peaceful  possession and

occupation of the plots in dispute for the last more than 50

years, and Respondent No.3, who was allotted a plot of land,

on lease, by the Government for establishing industrial units,

obtained another plot of land to an extent of 3000 Sq. Yds.

and by initiating land grabbing proceedings against others, in

collusion with the respondents, wanted to grab the lands of

the appellants without impleading them. The said writ petition

was dismissed by the High Court on 30.04.2007.  

7. The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the High

Court which was also dismissed. However, the appellants were

granted three months’ time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved

by  the  dismissal  of  the  writ  petition  and  subsequently,

dismissal  of  the  review  petition,  the  appellants  have

approached this Court.

8. The appellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court

on two main grounds:-  firstly,  that  the appellants  were not

parties to the entire proceedings before the Special Tribunal

and the Special Court and further the orders were obtained

without hearing and impleading them; and secondly, that the

Page 5

5

Special Tribunal and the Special Court did not adhere to the

mandatory  requirement  of  taking  cognizance  and  providing

opportunity to the interested parties in issuing notice as per

third proviso to Section 7(4) of  the Land Grabbing Act read

with Rules 7, 8 & 9 and calling of the verification report from

the Tehsildar under Rule 6.

9. In our considered opinion, the Special Tribunal as well as the

Special Court returned a concurrent finding that the land in

question was allotted to Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2

society. The two reports independently made by Commissioner

Advocate as well as the Assistant Director were correctly relied

upon by the two forums below and was upheld by the High

Court.   Once  the  title  of  Respondent  No.3  was  firmly

established,  the  appellants were duty bound to  rebut  these

evidences  and  establish  their  title  and  possession.  The

appellants miserably failed to lead any evidence as to their title

and only one evidence as to their possession was proved which

related to the year 1989 and nothing subsequent was shown

to  prove  the  possession  of  the  appellants.  Moreover,  if  the

stand of the appellants is perused carefully they have not been

Page 6

6

clear with their stand on their title.  

10. Another aspect which the High Court categorically dealt

with was that of suppression of facts by the appellants. The

appellants claim that they were not a party to the proceedings

before the Special Tribunal and the Special Court. However,

upon perusal  of  the  case  records  it  is  established that  the

appellants were not alien to the proceedings under the Land

Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Appellant No.4 himself filed

I.A. No.300 of 1994 before the Special Court to be impleaded

as a party. Also in I.A. No.285 of 1994, appellant Nos.1 and 2

were sought  to  be  impleaded as party.  The counsel  for  the

appellants in their writ petition before the High Court as well

as in their Review Petition vehemently argued that they were

not party to the proceedings. However, the fact of filing of the

above two applications was suppressed which was a deliberate

act  on  the  part  of  the  appellants.  The  High  Court  was,

therefore,  correct  in  concluding  that  the  appellants  did  not

come before the Court with clean hands.

Page 7

7

11. The  second  contention  is  non-compliance  of  the

procedure  as  envisaged  in  the  Act  and  the  Rules  framed

subsequently. We are afraid that this ground must also fail.

The  High  Court  has  at  great  length  discussed  the  legal

provisions  which  do  not  require  repetition.  However,  it  is

concluded that the plea of  non-compliance of the procedure

has no effect on the merits of the case and is therefore of no

consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case. The

appellants have failed to implead themselves before the Special

Court even when the fact of pendency of the case was known

to them. The ground of procedural lacunae must fail as well

being  taken  at  a  belated  stage  and  on  that  basis,  the

appellants  cannot  be  allowed  to  assail  the  substantive

adjudications and the findings arrived at concurrently by the

three forums below.

Page 8

8

12. The present appeals therefore must fail and we are not

inclined to interfere with the decision arrived at by the High

Court which is based on a correct analysis of facts and law

and rendered in the rational exercise of its discretion. These

appeals are accordingly dismissed.

….....….……………………J (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)

….....…..…………………..J (Amitava Roy)

New Delhi; July 15, 2016.