http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4604 of 2006

PETITIONER: State of A.P.

RESPONDENT: Smt. Prameela Modi and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Tarun Chatterjee

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14045-14046/2005)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted. This case has a chequered history.  This is the sixth in  series of litigation between the State of A.P. and the  respondents herein.  Both parties are in the legal battle field  fighting for the five decades.  The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the State  are tell tale.  They are required to be noticed in detail.  The lis  between the State of A.P. and the respondents centers around  a piece of land admeasuring acres 3-27 guntas situated in  Khairatabad village in Hyderabad District.  As rightly pointed  out by the High Court the dispute that began prior to  Hyderabad State attained its freedom still awaits its final  resolution.  Brief facts are as follows:-  Survey No. 116 of Khairatabad village is admeasuring 55  acres classified as poramboke sarkari Government land.  Prior  to sub-division conducted in favour of Smt. Prameela Modi,   four nos. were sub-divided and assigned survey nos. :  Sy. No.                Extent (Areas) 116/2                 Ac. 6.01 gts Raja Ram Dev 116/3             Ac. 5.00 gts Moulvi Farhatullah 116/4                Ac. 7.35 gts Pingali Venkat Ram Reddy 116/5                Ac. 6.35 gts Rama Krishna Reddy In view of the discrepancy in the survey nos. Smt.  Prameela Modi approached the Sarfekhas Authorities for  resolution of the dispute and after due enquiry, the matter was  finally resolved by issuance of a supplementary sethwar in  1357 Fasli (1947) by which 3 acres of 27 guntas out of survey  No. 116 was directed to be entered in the name of Smt.  Prameela Modi and a map was also issued by the  Superintendent of Survey to effect necessary entries in the  survey records (Ex. B5 and B6).  When the sub-division work  was carried out and supplementary sethwar was issued in  favour of Smt. Prameela Modi, the survey nos. assigned to her  land was also 116/2 and 116/3.  During the course of  mutation in revenue records to overcome the discrepancy  which has crept due to ignorance of the mutation of sub- division earlier assigned for Smt. Prameela Modi, the land was  assigned survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3.  The same entries of  pahani followed in town survey records which are marked as  Ex. B-19, 20 and 21 and a town survey extract of the year  1994 is marked as Exh. B-28.  The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records,  Andhra Pradesh in his proceedings bearing No. Ref. F1-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

18556/64 dated 29.05.1964 had framed an issue as to where  exactly this land is located with reference to the maps now  available.  The said issue was answered by the Director of  Settlements, Survey and Land Records in the above referred  proceedings which is extracted hereunder:  "The next question is with regard to the location of this  number. Here again it was found that both the land record  Officer as well as the petitioner Mrs.C.L. Modi are agreed  upon the general location of this land, according to the  revision survey map. According to both of them, this land is  located along the line with the tank on the south and the  road leading up to the Rock Castle Hotel on the eastern side.  There is also therefore, no dispute as far as the second issue  is concerned.  The Board of Revenue upheld the said orders  by judgment dated 24.04.1965 in AppealU2/1237/64."  

The Gazette Notification of the Town Survey Record  showing Blocks A-N in Ward No. 89 as Government land  whereas the implementation of the order of the High Court in  WP M.P. No. 6897 which is marked as Ex.B-36 was  28.08.1975 which was subsequent to Ex.A-1 on the basis of  the entries in the town survey proceedings under the Land  Encroachment Act were initiated on 16.11.19991 against   Smt. Prameela Modi which were set aside on 28.08.1993 by  the Joint Collector stating that the land belongs to               Smt. Prameela Modi and that she is not an encroacher.  The  Joint Collector referred to the history of the case in this order.   The Joint Collector directed Smt. Prameela Modi to approach  the Collector for correction of revenue records including TSLR,  which was ordered by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement  on a reference by the District Collector.  Accordingly,  permission was accorded by the Commissioner, Survey  Settlement and Land Records in file No. CSS and LR Ref.  No.P5/316/94 dated 12.05.1994 for the correction of entries  in the Town Survey Land register observing that since the  lands under reference are prima facie patta lands as per  survey settlement registers and village registers in favour of  Smt. Prameela Modi before town survey was conducted and  announced in 1976.  The sub-division was carried out in Town  Survey records vide proceedings in file No. G/TS/98/94 as  T.S. No. 3/1/1A and 3/1/1/B correlating to Survey No. 116/2  and 116/3.  Further, the town survey plans prepared on  26.05.1994 in pursuance of the corrections carried out in  Town Survey records in 1994 shows the physical location of  the land of the first respondent with the town survey nos.  which tallies exactly with the present location.  Panchanama was conducted vide proceedings in File No.  G./TS/107/94 dated 01.06.1994 by the Inspector of Survey  and Land Records and boundaries of the lands in  T.S.Nos.3/1/1A and 3/1/1B in Block K, Ward No.89,  correlating to Survey No. 116/2 and 116/3 of the Khairatabad  village were fixed with measurements. The extent and location  of the lands belonging to 1st respondent tallies exactly with the  present location.  The allocation of sub-division number SY. No. 116 which  consists of private lands and also government lands was done  by the Survey Officials connected to the State Government.  Right from the year 1945 respondent’s rights over the land in  occupation is evident from the copy of the sethwar issued by  the Sarfekhas authorities the then authorized department to  issue the same. The sethwar clearly indicates that the land in  Sy. No.116 was a compact Block but basing upon the  respective recognition of rights of the private parties over the  land in their occupation the Sub Divisional numbers carried  out on 116 only.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

The series of orders more so the proceedings of Director,  Settlement Survey and land Records, Andhra Pradesh,  Hyderabad in reference No. F1/18556/64 dated 29.05.1964  the issue with regard to the possession of respondent and the  location of the land in the possession of this Respondent was  decided in the presence of the Land Records Assistant. On 29.10.1997 the District Collector, Hyderabad, rejected  the application made by the Respondent Nos.2 to 7, who are  the subsequent purchasers and who are claiming title through  Smt. Prameela Modi, for  grant of No Objection Certificate in  order to enable them to submit building plans to Municipal  Corporation of Hyderabad. The rejection memo was set aside  by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 10159/1998  and the District Collector was directed to issue No Objection  Certificate. The said judgment was confirmed by a Division  Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2235/1998. The Special Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 12103/2000 filed by the Government of  Andhra Pradesh was dismissed by this Court by an order  dated 18.08.2000. After the dismissal of S.L.P. on 18.08.2000, the  respondent No.7 herein filed a contempt case being C.C.No.  1061/2001 against the District Collector for not issuing the No  Objection Certificate as directed by the High Court in W.P.No.  10159/98 as it attained finality with the dismissal of S.L.P.  No.12103/2000. The State filed Land Grabbing Case against  the respondents and issued No Objection Certificate to the  respondents in respect of the subject property, stating that the  same is subject to outcome of the Land Grabbing Case. The  contempt case was closed on 24.01.2002. Land Grabbing Case LGC 10/2002 filed by the State  against the Respondents was dismissed by judgment and  decree dated 30.07.2004 with the following findings: ?       The applicant absolutely failed to prove that the  application schedule property is located in Survey  No. 116/1. ?       The respondents have proved that they are the  owners and pattedars of the land located in survey  Nos. 116/2 and 116/3. ?       The applicant with full knowledge that the  respondents are the absolute owners of the land  located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 has filed the  application as if the application schedule property is  located in Survey No.116/1. ?       The application schedule property is located in Sy.  Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and that Mrs. Prameela Modi  (predecessor in title of the petitioner No.1) is the  owner of the application schedule property and she is  in possession of the application schedule property as  owner. ?       In view of the above said discussion, on the 1st issue  we hold that the applicant is not the owner of the  application schedule property. ?       In view of the above said discussion and in view of  our findings on issue No.1, on the 2nd issue, we hold  the rival title set up by the respondents is true and  valid and binding on the applicant. ?       In view of the above said discussions and in view of  our findings on issues 1 to 3 on the 4th issue, we hold  that the Government recognized the title and interest  of the 1st respondent in respect of land to an extent of  Ac. 3.27 guntas located in Survey Nos.116/2 and  116/3 more than 33 years ago prior to filing of this  L.G.C and Nizam Government recognized and  conferred the title on the respondent in 1357 fasli in  respect of an extent of Ac. 3.27 guntas of Sy. Nos.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

116/2 and 116/3 and the same was confirmed by  the Board of revenue stating that the 1st respondent  is entitled to Ac. 3.27 gunta in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and  116/3 including the land which the 1st respondent  sold in favour of two persons under registered sale  deeds in Fasli 1357, the extent of which was 11200  sq. yards. ?       In the result the application is dismissed.   Aggrieved by the order of the special Court, the State filed  writ petition No. 20537 of 2004 before the High Court.  The  State Government through Principal Secretary Government of  A.P. issued a show cause notice to the respondents dated  25.10.2004 stating that why the orders of the Commissioner of  Survey and Settlement Land Records in proceedings dated  12.05.1994 issued in BSO-34B(10) should not be cancelled  and the entries made in town survey land records be deleted.   Being aggrieved by the issuance of show cause notice, the  respondents filed writ Petition No. 20642 of 2004 before the  High Court.  Some of the respondents filed Writ Petition No.  19552 of 2004 praying inter alia for a declaration that the  action of respondents 1 and 2 not to dis-possess the writ  petitioners with aid of police from the property in survey Nos.  116/2 and 116/3 is illegal.  By the impugned order dated  26.04.2005 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed  the writ petition filed by the State.  The Division Bench has  allowed the Writ Petition No. 19552 of 2004 and directed the  Government not to interfere with the land in question and  dismissed Writ Petition No. 20537 of 2004 filed by the State of  A.P.  Hence, the above two appeals.       We have heard Mr. A.K.  Ganguly, learned senior counsel  appearing for the appellant and Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. R.F.  Nariman, Mr. L.N. Rao learned senior counsel and other  counsel appearing for the respective respondents. Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for  the appellant took us through the relevant records and also of  the various proceedings and the judgments.  According to Mr.  Ganguly, the High Court has failed to appreciate that as per  their own document No. 980 of Ist Farwardi 1355 F(1946) the  land in question is situated at 115/2 and the supplementary  Sethwar is as per their own contention was issued for the land  situated at Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and the respondents  have grabbed the Government land situated at Sy. No. 116/1.   He further contended that the supplementary Sethwar is not  conclusive proof of title unless it is implemented and approved  by the Nizam Jamabandi in Faisal Patti.  According to him, the  High Court has failed to appreciate that the lands in question  are government lands and the respondents do not have any  title over the lands in question and that the respondents have  played fraud upon the courts by not producing the alleged  supplementary Sethwar, the plan which as it transpires now,  was never authenticated by the concerned Deputy Director of  Survey & Land Records who is the custodian of the same on  the fact of it.  He further submitted that the originals in  respect of these documents are not available with the office of  the Deputy Director of Survey & Land Records, casting any  amount of doubt on the veracity and genuineness of these  documents.  He further submitted that the High Court has  failed to appreciate that the respondents concealed the fact  before the Special Court and did not produce the sale deed  even when the appellant herein filed the sale deed by way of  additional affidavit, the High Court did not consider the same  and passed the erroneous order.  It was further submitted that  the appellant has produced prima facie evidence on record to  establish that Khasra Pahanis and Town Survey records to  prove that the land in question in S.No.116/1 is a Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

land and that the High Court has grossly overlooked the fact  that the respondent is claiming the land in Sy. No. 116/1  instead of Sy. No. 116/2 without even producing the original  documents before the Special Court.  According to him, the  High Court ought to have appointed a Court Commissioner  duly assisted by the officer of survey department to determine  the exact location of the land being claimed by respondent  No.1 and rest of the respondents without which the High  Court cannot arrive at a conclusion as to the location of the  property in dispute.  He also invited our attention to the  provisions of Section 14 of the A.P. Survey & Boundaries Act,  1923 and also the judgment of this court in N. Srinivasa Rao  vs. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing  (Prohibition) Act & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 214.  Concluding his  arguments, Mr. Ganguly submitted that the impugned  judgments and orders of the High Court are contrary to the  principles laid down by this Court and the same are  unsustainable in law and facts. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for  the respondents while replying to the arguments of learned  senior counsel for the appellant first invited our attention to  the proceeding of the Director of Settlements, Survey & Land  Records, Board of Revenue, A.P. Hyderabad dated 29.5.1964.   We have carefully perused the same.  He placed before us  three maps on record namely of the year 1946 which is  appended to Sethwar itself (page 65 of Vol.II), 1978 map by  Survey Department and in this regard he invited our attention  to pages 103 & 104 of Vol.II.  M.C. Inspector, Hyderabad  Urban Taluk to the Collector Land Records, Hyderabad -  District by his letter dated 2.1.1976 addressed to the Collector  Land Records Hyderabad informing the Collector as under: "With the help of the plans available in the file, S.  Nos.116/2 and 116/3 have been inspected and boundaries,  have been demarcated on the site, in presence of the  representative of the party. No one has seen the  demarcation, of the land in question. The said representative  has also given in writing that he was present at the time of  demarcation, and he has seen all the boundaries.

The statement of the representative along with the  authorization letter of Dr. C.L. Modi the petitioner, are  submitted herewith for perusal and necessary action." Map issued in the year 1978 by the authorities is  available at page 104 of Vol.II.  The third map was issued in  the year 1994 by the Town survey which is at page 133 of   Vol.II.  A map dated 21.7.2005 signed by the Dy. Director,  Survey and Land Record Records, Hyderbad was placed by Mr.  Ganguly.  We have perused the said plan placed before us at  the time of hearing.  The said plan is incomplete in regard to  all other maps which were placed by the concerned authorities  and also before the High Court.  We cannot, therefore, give any  credence to the map which was placed before us after the High  Court judgment. Mr. R.F. Nariman then drew our attention to the Andhra  Pradesh Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 and in particular,  Section 9 of the Act.  Section 9 of the Act reads thus: "9. Power of survey officer to determine and record an  undisputed boundary:- (1) The survey officer shall have  power to determine and record undisputed any boundary in  respect of which no dispute is brought to his notice.

(2) Notice to registered holders of lands affected:- Notice of  every decision of the survey officer under section 9(1) shall  be given in the prescribed manner to the registered holders  of the lands the boundaries of which may be affected by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

decisions."

The submission of Mr. Nariman was not controverted by  learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.   Our attention was drawn to the proceedings of the  Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, A.P.  Hyderabad dated 12.5.1994 with regard to the correction of  Town Survey Records in respect of 116/1. 116/2 and 116/3 of  Khairatabad village which is corrected to Town Survey No.  3/1/Block-K, Ward-18.  It is useful to reproduce few  paragraphs in the concluding part of the said order: "That in the first instance the D.O.S. Hyderabad in his  F1/18556/64 m Dt. 29-05-64 confirmed the entries of the  supplementary Sethwar issued in F.1357 (1947) by the   Surfekhas authorities.  The sane orders D.O.S. Hyderabad  dated 29.05.1964  were confirmed Erstwhile Board of  Revenue in U2/237/64 Dt. 24.04.65 and also the  Government in the Memo No. 1547/R1/65 Dt. 27, Dt.  3.12.68. The Joint Collector in his order F4/9232/91  Dt.28.8.93 endorsed for correction of town surveyor crept in  during town survey conducted and announced in the year  1976. Further the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in  W.P.M.P No. 6897/75 in W.P.M.P. No. 4526/75 Dt.28.08.75  directed the Revenue authorities to implement of the order of  Revenue authorities who confirmed the supplementary  Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas authorities.

As such the Collector Hyderabad incorporated the  entries of supplementary Sethwar in the village by the  Pahanies of 1980-81 but the entries in the town survey  registers have not been corrected.

Since the land under reference are prima facie patta  lands as per survey settlement registers and village registers  in favour of Smt. Pramila Modi before town survey conducted  and announced in 1976. The collector Hyderabad submitted  the present proposals for correction of classification which  was wrongly entered in town survey registers under B.S.O  34-B(10).

When the matter has been referred to the Director  Survey Settlement and Land Records Hyderabad, the Deputy  Director H.Qs stated that the correction proposals sent by  the collector Hyderabad have been technically scrutinized  and are found in order, that the detailed town survey of  Hyderabad city was conducted under the provisions of  A.P.S.B Act 1923 and has been validated U/S 13 of A.P.S.B  Act, that the corrections can be carried out only under the  provisions of B.S.O 3-4-B (10)."

In the circumstances reported by the Collector  Hyderabad and as his proposals are found correct on  technical scrutiny by the Head Qrs. Deputy Director of  L.C.S.Officer, the Commissioner, Survey Settlement A.P.  Hyderabad agrees with him and permit the Collector,  Hyderabad under Rule 8 O 34-B (10) to correct the town  survey records as proposed by him. "

He also invited our attention to the show cause notice  dated 25.10.2004 by the Government of A.P., Revenue  Department calling upon Smt. Prameela Modi & Ors. to show  cause why the order of Commissioner of Survey and  Settlement and Land Records in proceedings dated 12.5.1994  under BSO 34-B-10 should not be cancelled and to delete the  entries made in Town Survey Records No. 3/1/1 of Block \026 K

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

Ward No. 89 of Khairatabad village in pursuance of the said  order to submit their explanation.  It was submitted that this  notice was challenged by the Ist respondent herein in W.P.No.  20642 of 2004 and the High Court has entertained the same  and is pending.  The High court has also granted the stay of  the proceedings. Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the  appellant, submitted that the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)  Act, 1982 has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title  and ownership.   This submission was controverted by Mr. R.F. Nariman,  learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents by  inviting our attention to Section 8 of A.P. Land Grabbing  (Prohibition) Act, 1982.  Section 8 of the said Act reads as  follows: "8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:- (1) The  Special Court may, either suo moto 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;

{xxxxx}

(1-A) The Special Court shall, for the purpose of taking  cognizance of the case, consider the location, or extent or  value of the land alleged to have been grabbed or of the  substantial nature of the evil involved or in the interest of  justice required or any other relevant matter;

Provided that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of  any such case without hearing the Petitioner.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure,  1908 (the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) or in the  Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, any case in respect  of an alleged act of land grabbing or the determination of  question of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of  any land grabbed under this Act, shall be triable only in a  Special Court constituted for the area in which the land  grabbed is situated; and the decision of the Special Court  shall be final.

(2-A) If the Special Court is of the opinion that any case  brought before it, is not a fit case to be taken cognizance of,  it may return the same for presentation before the Special  Tribunal:

Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Court, any  application filed before it, is prima facie frivolous or  vexatious, it shall reject the same without any further  enquiry:

Provided further that if on an application from an interested  person to withdraw and try a case pending before any  Special Tribunal the Special Court is of the opinion that it is  a fit case to be withdrawn and tried by it, it may for reasons  to be recorded in writing withdraw any such case from such  Special Tribunal and shall deal with it as if the case was  originally instituted before the Special Court.

(2-B) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

try all offences punishable under this Act.

(2-C) The Special Court shall determine the order in which  the civil and criminal liability against a land grabber be  initiated. It shall be within the discretion of the Special Court  whether or not to deliver its decision or order until both civil  and criminal proceedings are completed. The evidence  admitted during the criminal proceeding may be made use of  while trying the civil liability. But additional evidence, if any,  adduced in the civil proceedings shall not be considered by  the Special Court while determining the criminal liability.  Any person accused of land grabbing or the abetment thereof  before the Special Court shall be competent witness for the  defence and may give evidence or oath in disproof of the  charge made against him or any person charged together  with him in the criminal proceedings:

Provided that he shall not be called as a witness except on  his own request in writing or his failure to give evidence shall  be made the subject of any comment by any parties or the  Special Court or give to any presumption against himself or  any person charged together with him at the same  proceeding.

3. (xxx) 4.(xxx) 5. (xxx)

6. Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any  alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the  fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed  such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court  with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or  lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on  all persons having interest in such land.

Provided that the Special court shall, by notification, specify  the fact of taking cognizance of the case under this Act. Such  notification, shall state that any objection which may be  received by the Special Court from any person including the  custodian of evacuee property within the period specified  herein will be considered by it:

Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee  property objects to the Special Court taking cognizance of  the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further with the  case in regard to such property;

Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice of  taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any  person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a  summary enquiry to satisfy itself about the persons likely to  be interested in the land.

7. (xxx)

8. Any case, pending before any Court or other authority  immediately before the Constitution of a Special Court, as  would have been within the jurisdiction of such Special  Court, shall stand transferred to the Special Court (xxx) as if  the cause of action on which such suit or proceedings is  based and arisen after the Constitution of the Special Court."

Section 8(1) authorizes the Special Court either suo motu  or on application made by any person, officer or authority take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

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 the Act, and pass such orders as it  deems fit. Section 8(2) states that the Special Court determines the  question of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of any  land grabbed under this act and that the same shall be triable  only in a Special Court constituted for the area in which the  land grabbed is situated; and the decision of the Special Court  shall be final.      Section 8(6) states that every finding of the Special  Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be  conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons  who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the  Special Court with regard to the determination of title and  ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall  be binding on all persons having interest in such land. It is thus seen that the Special Court can play the role of  a Civil Court and decide the disputed question of title and  possession.  The extent of jurisdiction as is permitted by the  statute, therefore, is rather wide in its application.  Three  specific situations have been noted namely, i)      Jurisdiction can be had in regard to a case in  respect of an alleged act of land grabbing ii)     Jurisdiction can be had in a case where  determination of question of title and ownership  are involved and iii)    Jurisdiction can be had where lawful possession  of any land grabbed under the Act is involved. All these three specific situations as envisaged by and under  the Statute would be triable in the Special Court.  The  condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by the Special  Court is that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act  of land grabbing and a District Judge while acting as a Special  Court merely acts as a Presiding Officer of the Court.  Having  regard to the provisions of Section 8(2) read with Section 15 of  the Act, no suit for title in respect of the disputed land which  was alleged to be grabbed by the party could be entertained by  the Civil Court.  In other words, the Civil Court is barred from  trying the matters which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction  of the Special Court constituted under the Act.         The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the  Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to the proceedings  before the Special Court and for the purposes of the provisions  of the said enactments, Special Court shall be deemed to be a  Civil Court under Section 9.           The provisions of this Act shall have effect  notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in  any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or  agreement or decree or order of a Court or any other tribunal  or authority.           Thus it is seen that the arguments advanced by Mr. A.K.  Ganguly is totally contradictory to the above provisions of the  Act and that Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the  matters with respect to the ownership, title and lawful  possession.             Our attention was also drawn to the application filed  before the Special Court by the State of A.P.  The prayer (a)  was to declare the applicant (State of A.P.) as owner of the  Application Schedule land and to declare the respondents as  land grabbers.  In the Concise Statement, it has been averred  that the Special Court always got jurisdiction to decide all  questions relating to title and other incidental questions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

including the other questions that may arise or falls under the  jurisdiction of some other forum in order to give reliefs.  It is  also further stated in the concluding portion of the Concise  Statement that no civil Suit pending before any Civil Court  pertaining to the application schedule land.  The Special Court  on the pleadings in the application framed certain issues  which included Issue Nos. 1 & 4 which relate to the State’s  ownership of the application Schedule property and as to  whether the Government itself recognized the title and interest  of respondent No.1 in respect of application schedule property  and as such the said application is not maintainable.  The  Special Court in its detailed and well considered order  categorically held that the first respondent herein proved her  title and possession under Ex. B5 as early as in 1357 Fasli  (1946) and when the first respondent was entitled to an extent  of Acre 3.27 guntas in Sy. No. 116/2 and 116/3 of   Khairtabad village, merely because, there is an entry in the  Khasra Phani for the year 1954-55 (Ex. A5) does not affect the  right, title of respondent No.1 in the land located in St. Nos.  116/2 and 116/3.           Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel also  advanced similar arguments and also invited our attention to  the judgment of the Special Court.  Relevant portion is  reproduced hereunder: "The title of the 1st respondent was decided and also it  was decided that the 1st respondent is entitled to Ac.3.27  guntas in Sy. No. 116/2 and 116/3 by various government  departments including the Board of Revenue and the  government of A.P., dated 03.12.1968. The collector  is not  competent to question the various orders passed by the  Director, Settlement and Land Records, the Board of  Revenue and the government. The High Court also directed  to implement the orders of the Board of Revenue dated  24.04.1965. In the Contempt petition the applicant herein  undertook to implement the orders of the Board of Revenue.  Ex.B3 sketch prepared dated 26.05.1994 whereas, in Ex. A3  is the sketch copy of TSLR in Ex.B3, the two survey  No.3/1/1/A and 3/1/1/B whereas in Ex. A3 1/A and 1/B  were erased at 4 places in Ex.A3. The applicant did not  approach the court with clean hands the applicant has no  respect for truth in filing Ex.A3 erasing 1/A and 1/B at 4  places in Ex.A3, Ex.B1 is the certified copy of TSLR wherein  the TSLR was corrected and issued a copy of the same to the  1st respondent. Ex.B12 is the sketch prepared in  1971,wherein it is specifically mentioned Sy.No.116/1 is  beyond the road. The Sy. No. 116/1 is on the north of the  road and whereas Sy. No.116/2 and 116/3 as shown in  Ex.B12. The applicant absolutely failed to prove that the  properly located Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is in 116/1,  which is on the north of the road as shown in Ex. B.12, Ex.  B12 was prepared by the Inspector of Survey and land  Records and in pursuance of the orders of Ex.B3 was  prepared and issued by the government authorities. Ex.A3 is  also prepared by the government authorities. The applicant  absolutely failed to prove that the respondents grabbed an  extent of 14869 sq.mtrs. located in T.S.No.3/1  corresponding to Sy.No.116/1. The respondents, specifically,  the 1st respondent is the absolute owner and pattedar of the  land located in Sy. No. 116/2 and 116/3 as shown in Ex. B3  as shown in T.S.No. 3/1/1A and 3/1/1B.

The applicant did not take any steps to localize the  land in Sy. No.116/1. The 1st respondent did not grab any  land located in Sy. No.116/1. The applicant has no right,  title to in Sy. No. 116/2 and 116/3 i.e. in T.S.No.3/1/1A

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

and 3/1/1B. The applicant has not come to the court with  clean hands erasing the T.S.No.1/A and 1/B at 4 places in  Ex. A3 which amounts to production of false document in a  judicial proceeding. The applicant absolutely failed to prove  that the application schedule property is located in Sy.  No.116/1. The respondents proved that the application  schedule property is located in Sy.No. 116/2 and 116/3."          

He also drew our attention to I.A.Nos. 1-2 of 2005 - application filed by the State of A.P. in this Court seeking  permission to urge additional evidence and to file additional  documents.  By the said application, the State of A.P. sought  permission from this Court to present the said application for  permission to urge additional documents as Annexure P-10 in  the S.L.P. which, document, according to the State of A.P., has  become necessary in the light of the confusion in respect of  the identity and location of the application schedule land.   This application was filed on 23.6.2005 along with Annexure  P-10 (MAP).           Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for some  of the respondents adopted largely the arguments of Mr. R.F.  Nariman and Mr. Harish N. Salve.         We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration  to the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel  appearing for the parties.         At the outset, it may be pointed out that the sheet anchor  of the case of the Government of A.P. projected for the first  time before this Court and not urged before any Courts below  is the physical location of the land in dispute which is  buttressed by a new map filed for the first time before this  Court to bolster up the said new false plea set up for the first  time.  As pointed out by Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior  counsel appearing for the respondents, no reason whatsoever  have been given as to why the said map was not filed before  any of the Courts below in a litigation which is five decades  old.  Nothing is stated as to where from the said site map has  originated and on what survey and land record it is based.   The said map, in our opinion, is directly contrary to the  undisputed authenticated site map issued by the Collector  himself which was Ex. B-12 before the trial Court.  A true copy  of which is also annexed to the special leave petition.  A  perusal of Ex. B-12 shows that Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3  in respect of which patta was admittedly granted in favour of  the first respondent is at the same very place where for the  first time now it is being projected before this Court as Survey  No. 116/1.   Ex. B-12 and its veracity issued by the Collector  himself has not been challenged at any time before any of the  Courts below during the last 50 years of litigation.  It may  surprise one’s understanding as to how a new survey number  can be projected by filing a new map for the first time in the  place where survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is shown situated.   Absolutely no reasons were given for filing of the said new map  showing different survey numbers contrary to the survey  numbers as in Ex. B-12.  In fact there are number of exhibits  certified by the Collector himself which show Survey Nos.  116/2 and 116/3 situate at the very site where now Survey  No. 116/1 is alleged to be situated.  In fact Ex. B-12 issued by  the office of the Collector showing Survey Nos. 116/2 and  116/3 abutting the main road has been drawn from the village  map as existing in the revenue records.  A perusal of the said  village map annexed as Annexure to the S.L.P. also shows that  Survey Nos. 116/2 & 116/3 are situated at the very same  place where for the first time now it is being projected that  Survey No. 116/1 is situated.         In our opinion, the Government has not explained as to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

why Annexure R-1 (new map) is filed for the first time in this  Court in a litigation which is five decades old and as to why  the State of A.P. has concealed and not filed Ex. B-12 which is  part of the record below and on what revenue record the said  new site map filed for the first time is based?         There cannot conceivably be any satisfactory explanation  to the aforesaid queries which arise naturally in the light of  the blatant false site map projected for the first time and the  submissions based thereon.         We have gone through the grounds of appeals seeking  leave to appeal against the common judgment of the Division  Bench of the High Court.  The State, in our view, has raised  inconsistent pleas/grounds before the High Court as well.   There is no allegation much less any proof that the  respondents have taken possession illegally and fully knowing  that they were acting illegally while taking possession.  There  is also no allegation on any of the respondents unauthorisedly  snatching the land belonging to the Government.  On the other  hand, the Special Court on an analysis of the evidence held  that the State has failed to establish that the land in  possession of the respondent forms part of Survey No. 116/1  and on the other hand the applicant schedule property is  located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and that the first  respondent is the owner of the property in dispute and is in  possession of the said property as owner.  It is also not the  case of the appellant that the Special Court has either acted  on evidence, which is legally inadmissible or has refused to  admit admissible evidence.  The evidence adduced by the  respondents clearly established that the Sarfekhas  administration i.e. the former Nizam’s Government went into  the title of this respondent and thereafter issued  supplementary sethewar in her favour for an extent of Ac. 3.27  guntas and directed the sub-Division of Survey No. 116 into  Survey Nos. 116/1, 116/2 and 16/3 as back as in the year  1946, thus patta was granted by Surfekhas authorities in  favour of Mrs. Pramila Modi over an extent of Ac. 2.21 guntas  in Sy. No. 116/2 and Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No. 116/3.  Survey  No. 116/1 alone was treated as Government land and not Sy.  No. 116/2 and Sy. No. 116/3.  The said order was also  implemented and the mutation was also effected in the  revenue records.  Mrs. Prameela Modi thus from the inception  continued to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 3.27  guntas in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 as its owner.  It is also a  matter of record that from out of the said extent,  she  alienated an extent of 11200 sq. yds. under registered sale  deeds in favour of two persons namely, Dr. Roopkaran under  Document No. 170/1357 Fasli dated Ist Khurdad 1357 Fasli  and to Sri Basheruddin Ahmed Khan under Document No.  2871/1357 Fasli, dated 2nd Amardad, 1357 Fasli who  subsequently sold to various persons from whom the  respondents 2-8 purchased their respective plots.           A supplementary Sethwar issued by Sarfekhas  authorities was marked before the Special Court as Ex. B-5 in  Urdu and its true translation is Ex. B-6.  A map was also  marked as B-37 which clearly establishes that the land of the  respondent which was in possession of the respondent since  more than 6 decades, which location of the land was  identified, confirmed and also certified by the Sarfekhas  authorities by issuing copy of the map which was marked as  Ex. B-37.           It was also submitted that the record of Sarfekhas  Secretariat in file 99/1945 of 1356 Fasli contains the approved  plan of Sy. No. 116/2 and 116/3 admeasuring Ac. 3.27  guntas.  Though necessary corrections in the related records  were not carried out, Mrs. Prameela Modi continued to be in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

possession of the land as the owner.  But the said proceedings  were taken cognizance by the revenue authorities including  the Government and the title of Mrs. Prameela Modi to the  land was never questioned either by the Government of  Hyderabad or Government of Andhra Pradesh.  In view of this,  the contention of the appellant that Mrs. Prameela Modi  suppressed the sale deed before the Special Court is not  correct.  Her title as aforesaid is based on the supplementary  Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas authorities of the erstwhile  Nizam Government which was accepted by the Survey and  Revenue authorities including the government of A.P.  Since  the orders of the Surfekhas authority are legally binding upon  the statutory authorities of the successive Governments, i.e.  the Government of Hyderabad and later Government of A.P.   The issue cannot, therefore, be reopened either in facts or in  law at this distance of time.           The Government of A.P. issued Memo No. 1547-R1/65-27  dated 3rd December, 1968 confirming the judgment of the  Board of Revenue which is marked as Ex. B-10.  The first  respondent filed W.P. No. 4526 of 1975 before the High Court  of A.P. and the High Court by its order dated 28.8.1975 in  WPMP No. 6897/1975 in WP No. 4526/1975   directed the  implementation of the orders of the Director, Survey  Settlement and Land Records, the Board of Revenue and that  of the Memo of the Government aforementioned.  When the  said orders were not implemented, a Contempt Case CC  44/1976 was filed by the first respondent wherein an  undertaking was given on 7.2.1997 by the Government stating  that Mrs. Prameela Modi is being informed that the  supplementary Sethwar of 1356 Fasli was received and steps  for the implementation of the same were being taken and the  said mutation would be finalized during the Jamabandi.         It is seen from the records that the Town Survey was  finalized and published on 25.9.1976 showing the land as  Government land which was prior to the aforesaid proceedings  and as such it is impermissible for the Government to state  that the land is government land as per Town Survey Records.   True copy of the Hyderabad District Gazette dated 25.9.1976  publishing that the Town Survey was finalized and published  on 25.9.1976 showing the land as Government land is  annexed and marked as Annexure R-14 in these appeals.           It was argued that the land of the respondents was  demarcated by the Government through the M.C. Inspector,  Hyderabad under taluk in File No. G6/2598/DM/0/75 dated  25.5.1976 and the same was informed to the Collector, Land  Records, Hyderabad District through letter dated 2.1.1976  along with the demarcated map of the respondent.    It is also  clear that long back the issues of location of the scheduled  property, the title of the first respondent, her long standing  possession and subsequent sales made by her were settled  once of all as evidenced by the proceedings at various levels  including the Government.  Therefore, after such a long time,  it is not open to the government to re-agitate the same issue  both on the principles of res judicata and estoppel.  The  matters which were concluded by the decisions of the  competent statutory authorities cannot be re-opened and a  citizen cannot be subjected to such repeated litigation.   Therefore, the issue about the physical location raised by the  government, for the first time before this Court, by filing a  fabricated and unauthenticated sketch which has no basis  whatsoever, with regard to the location of the land belonging  to Mrs. Prameela Modi.          We have carefully perused the judgment rendered by the  Division Bench of the High Court.  There is no illegality or  irregularity and infirmity on the face of the record by both the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

Courts below.  The High Court has rightly held that the  Special Court neither acted on evidence, which is legally  inadmissible nor has refused to admit the admissible evidence  and that the Special Court adverted itself to the correct issues  that have fallen for its consideration.  The High Court and the  Special Court have also rightly concluded that the land in Sy.  Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is not government land after perusing  both oral and documentary evidence and rightly dismissed the  petition filed by the State by holding that there is no error  apparent on the face of the record and further holding that the  findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a  result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or  questioned in writ proceedings and by holding that the High  Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the  Constitution of India cannot convert itself into a Court of  Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of the  evidence.  The High Court also relied on a judgment of this  Court in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and Others vs. Mahboob  Begum and Others, AIR 1955 SC 352 and Rajah S.V.  Jagannath Rao vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1962  SC 141 and held that the Nizam and his administration had  every right to recognize or grant patta in favour of any  individual of his choice in respect of Surfekhas properties.   This apart there is ample evidence to show that the right and  title to Mrs. Prameela Modi flows out of the supplementary  sethwar, which was examined in detail by the Director of  Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, the Board  of Revenue and the State Government thereafter.  This was  also examined by the High Court in W.P. No. 4526/1975 and  CC No. 44 of 1976 and also in W.P. No. 10159/1998 which  was confirmed in W.A. No. 2235 of 1998 and further by this  Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 12103 of 2000.  In our view, the  continuance of the name of Smt. Rabia Begum in revenue  records against Sy. Nos. 115/2 and 115/3 has no relevance  since the claim of the first respondent is not based on the sale  deed but on the Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas.           In conclusion, we are of the view that the High Court has  rightly upheld the findings of the Special Court that the State  has failed to prove that the Scheduled property is located in  Survey No. 116/1.   There is no irregularity and infirmity in  the judgment passed by the High Court as well as the Special  Court in rejecting the claim of the State.  The Special Court  elaborately considered and concluded the title of the property  in question in favour of the first respondent.  Therefore there  is no scope at all for this Court to interfere with the considered  factual findings at this belated stage.  As already noticed, the  parties are litigating for the last 50 years and it is high time  that the parties should realize the correct fact situation and  close the lis once & for all.           We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the  Special Court and also the view taken by the High Court that  the respondents herein have not grabbed the land nor can be  characterized as land grabbers.  We further hold that the State  of A.P. and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to  interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question  by the respondents in any manner whatsoever.  Accordingly,  there shall be a direction to the appellant not to interfere with  the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question  by the respondents in any manner whatsoever.           In the result, the appeals are dismissed.  However, there  shall be no order as to costs.