IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5841-5845  OF 2008          [Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.23859-23863 of 2007]

PARVEEN JEHAN BEGUM                           Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

S. ANJAIAH GOUD & ORS. ETC.                   Respondent(s)   

O R D E R   

Leave granted.

These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 5th  

November, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in five different writ  

petitions filed by the appellant herein.

Briefly stated, the facts which gave rise to the writ petitions are that  

two land grabbing cases were filed, being LGC Nos. 122/99 and 75/2001, by the  

respondents  herein,  alleging  that  the  appellant  had  wrongfully  and  illegally  

occupied  certain  portions  of  the  land  which  belonged  to  them  and  thereby  

committed  an offence  under  the  Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition)  

Act, 1982.

The said two cases were taken up by a Bench of  

-2-

two Members of the Special Court constituted under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act

consisting of the Judicial member and a Revenue member.   After considering the  

case made out on behalf of the respective parties, the two members differed in their  

views  while  delivering  the  final  order.   We  need  not  go  into  the  question  of  

difference between the members.  In terms of   Section 7(4B)(e) of the aforesaid  

Act,  the separate opinions of the two members were placed before the Chairman  

and the Chairman himself took up the matter for delivering his  opinion in the  

matter.  While the matter was pending before the Chairman, several interlocutory  

applications were filed by the appellant herein, which, we are informed, are 12 in  

number.  The same were filed in two stages, and at the first stage IA Nos. 422 to  

426 of 2007 were filed.  At the second stage,  7 more interlocutory applications,  

namely, I.As. 33 to 37, 80 and 81 of 2008 were also filed.

It is the case of the appellant that despite submissions having been  

made before the Chairman for hearing of the said applications first,  the Chairman  

chose not to do so and proceeded with the main case.  As against the same the 5  

writ petitions  came to  be filed before the

-3-

High Court.   The  same prayer  was made before  the  High  Court   which was  

rejected with the direction that the applications and the main case could be heard  

together  and  there  was  no  case  for  having  the  said  interlocutory  applications  

decided separately before the main matter was heard.

It is against the said order of the High Court that these appeals have  

been filed.

Having heard Mr. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the appellant, and  

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that  

there is   substance in the submissions made by Mr. Ahmadi regarding the disposal  

of  the  interlocutory  applications  before  the  main  case  is  taken up for  hearing.  

However, we are also conscious of the fact that the matter has been pending since  

1999.   Accordingly, in order to prevent  further delay in disposing of the matter,  

we allow and dispose of these appeals by directing the Chairman to take up the  

interlocutory  applications  along  with  the  main  case,  but  to  dispose  of  the  

interlocutory applications first by passing orders in each interlocutory application  

as soon as possible and thereafter to  proceed with the hearing of the  

-4-

main case.  In the event the applications are allowed and fresh evidence is required  

to be taken,   the final opinion will have to be rendered only thereafter.   We also  

make  it  clear  that  the  appellant  before  us  will  not  be  entitled  to  question  the  

decision of  the Chairman on the  interlocutory applications  separately  from the  

main opinion, which may be given by him on the basis of which the final decision  

will follow.  This will be equally applicable to both the appellant as well as the  

respondents.

Since the matter is pending for quite some time, we also request the  

Chairman of the Bench to dispose of  the pending matter and the interlocutory  

applications  as  expeditiously  as  possible,  but  preferably  within  a  period  of  six  

months from the date of communication of this order.  We also make it clear that

we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the interlocutory applications,  

which the Chairman will be free to decide.

We also record the submissions made by Mr. Ahmadi that of  the  

pending 12 interlocutory applications,  his client will only be pressing IAs 422 to  

426 of 2007 and IA 35 of 2008 and not others.

-5-

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.    

There will be no order as to costs.

   ....................J.     (ALTAMAS KABIR)

   ....................J.     (MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI; September 25,   2008.