The companyrt proceedings ought number to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution.
The respondents had earlier challenged the said order dated 4.11.1997 before the High Court, as well as before this Court.
The respondents filed Review Application number 397/2005 in LGC No.
The respondents in the said application impleaded persons other than the appellant applicant also, i.e. the vendors of the appellant applicant and govt.
518/2002.
19962 19963 of 2006, by which the High Court has allowed the said petitions against the Judgment and order of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 hereinafter called, Act 1982 , dismissing the review application No.
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.
76 after an inordinate delay, seeking review of the order dated 4.11.1997.
The respondents filed their reply submitting that in respect of the suit land, there was an agreement to sell, dated 23.01.1976, in favour of the society and once such an agreement to sell had been executed, vendors had numberright to transfer the land in favour of the appellant applicant.
The respondents have numberlocus standi to ask the Special Court to determine under what circumstances the appellant applicant had obtained the suit land.
The respondents being aggrieved by the companymon order dated 7.11.2002, filed writ petition number.
33572/1997 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 3.07.2001.
The appeals lack merit and numberinterference is warranted by this Court.
M.V. Durga Prasad, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the transfer of land in favour of the appellant applicant vide registered sale deed dated 21.05.1980 was itself a fraudulent transaction and material in this regard was suppressed from the Special Court while obtaining the orders in their favour.
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.
31506/2002 before the High Court.
The respondents subsequently filed an application in LGCSR No.
who are the other appellants in these cases.
The respondents had number been the members of the Society number Society made any allotment in their favour.
18218/2001 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.11.2001 giving liberty to the respondents to file review petition before the High Court.
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.
However, the said review petition was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 16.12.2002.
emphasis added In another case decided by the Special Court vide order dated 6th July, 2006 the Court had taken numbere of the pleadings in respect of identification of land and mis representation fraud companylusion in the earlier proceedings and the observations made by the Writ Court in its order dated 17th December, 2002 that the said respondents were interested in protracting the litigation and obstructing the implementation of the order of the Special Court dated 4.11.1997.
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.
22953 and 23105 of 2002, which were, dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 17.12.2002.
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 companyperative society namely, Gruha Lakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. hereinafter called, the Society .
In the intervening period, when the review petition was pending before the High Court, the appellant applicant filed execution proceedings by moving IA No.
In respect of the said agreement to sell the litigation remained pending before the Civil Court but there is numberhing on record to show as to what had been its outcome.
22953/2002 and 23105/2002 wherein pleading of the alleged fraud and mis identification of suit land were taken.
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 was mostly out of station, and the respondents had forcibly grabbed his land and raised companystruction thereon.
The respondents filed review petition No.
Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the respondents preferred Special Leave Petition c No.
Once the respondents had approached this Court, the question of entertaining the review petition after an inordinate delay of 7 8 years does number arise.
These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, passed in Writ Petition Nos.
The respondents have raised the issue of the identification of the suit land.
The respondents, being aggrieved by both the orders, filed Writ Petition Nos.
The Respondents also moved an application to summon the record of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secundrabad, pertaining to the survey of the suit land along with an application for the stay of Execution proceedings.
officials etc.,
The presumption of innocence is a human right, however, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of Criminal Jurisprudence.
cannot be made by them.
The said order was under challenge before the High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
The Special Court also took numbere of earlier direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to identify the land and possession of the same was delivered to the decree holder.
the respondents were issued a show cause numberice.
The Special Court after appreciating the evidence, vide Judgment and order dated 4.11.1997 came to the companyclusion that the appellant applicant was the owner of the suit land and that the respondents had numberright, title or claim over the suit land.
In view of the above factual position, we reach the following companyclusions There has been a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant applicant by the vendors which was registered on 21.5.1980 and he was put in possession.
51 of 2002 where one of the main grounds had been that the appellant applicant had played fraud in obtaining the said order as is taken numbere of in paragraph 13 of the said order by the Special Court.
An agreement to sell did number companyfer 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.
The said order had been passed in Application No.
19962 and 19963 of 2006, which have been allowed by the High Court vide impugned Judgment and order dated 26.04.2007, directing the Special Court to decide both the applications afresh on merit, as in the opinion of the High Court, the applications required certain inquiry on factual matters and the claim of the respondents companyld number have been rejected merely on the determination and attaining finality of orders in earlier proceedings.
The society had allotted the suit land in their favour, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.
Fraud vitiates everything.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the companymon order passed in IA Nos.
Thus, he sought the relief of their dispossession and action against them under the provisions of the Act, 1982.
518/2002, 861/2002 and 869/2002, by this Court was questioned by the applicants herein by filing Writ Petitions before the Honble High Court of A.P. and the same was also dismissed holding that the applicants herein are trying to protract the litigation and to delay the delivery of possession of the property in question to the respondents.
After companyplying with the requirements of the statutory provisions i.e. taking the sanction etc.,
Hence, these appeals.
The High Court has gravely erred in interfering with the orders of the Special Court rejecting both the applications.
Thus, the applications filed by the respondents were maintainable and the High Court has rightly reversed the orders passed by the Special Court.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court dated 4.11.1997, the respondents preferred writ petition No.
The Special Court vide order dated 7.11.2002 allowed the Execution Application filed by the appellant applicant but dismissed the application filed by respondents directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to implement the order dated 4.11.1997.
76/1996 and in LGCSR 357/2005.
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.
An application to call for certain records in respect of the suit land from 1972 to 2002, the survey reports etc.
The orders passed therein attained finality and in pursuance of the same, the appellant applicant came into possession of the suit land.
For this purpose, the nature of offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into companysideration.
Per companytra, Sh.
They had forcibly occupied the land and they were land grabbers, thus, they were liable to be evicted and orders for that purpose were passed.
The earlier proceedings came to an end after having several rounds of litigation upto the High Court and one round upto this Court.
Issues of fraud and identification of land had been in issue in some of the earlier proceedings.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present cases are as under V. Ram Chandra Reddy and his brother vendors had a huge chunk of land and a part of it companyld have been the subject matter of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter called the Act 1976 .
The appellant applicant vendee filed LGC No.
4758/80 and the appellants were put in possession of the suit land.
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.
