LAW FOR ALL

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: Suit land purchased by appellant/applicant by way of a registered sale deed - Challenge not made by anyone as to the validity of the sale deed - In earlier proceedings, respondents claiming right over suit land - However, not producing any document to show their right, interest or title in the suit land - Order attaining finality to the effect that there was no misrepresentation or fraud or suppression of material fact on the part of the appellant in respect of his claim over suit land - Fresh proceedings by respondents raising issue of fraud - Held: Would be tantamount to malicious prosecution as the issue had earlier been adjudicated upon - Finding of facts was recorded in earlier proceedings that the appellant was in actual possession of land and was illegally dispossessed by the respondents - Land grabbing. s.10 - Allegation of land grabbing - Burden to prove innocence - Held: Is on the accused - It is not like any other criminal case where accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved - Criminal law - Burden of proof . Review: Review application - Maintainability of - Held: In case a review application is filed before filing the special leave petition and the review application remains pending till the dismissal of the special leave petition, then the review application deserves to be considered - However, if a review application is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special leave petition, the process of filing review application would amount to abuse of process of the court and such an application is not maintainable - Administration of justice - Abuse of process of law. Judgment/order: Obtained by playing fraud on court - Validity of - Held: An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously - Order obtained by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority not valid in the eyes of law - Fraud is an anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata - Equity - Fraud on court. The suit land was purchased by the appellant/applicant by way of registered sale deed dated 21.5.1980. The appellant filed a complaint under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against the respondents stating that they grabbed his land and raised construction thereon. The plea raised by the respondents was that in respect of the suit land, there was an agreement to sell dated 23.01.1976, in favour of a Society which had allotted the land in their favour, therefore, the vendors of the appellant had no right to transfer the land in favour of the appellant. The Special Court by order dated 4.11.1997 held that the appellant was the owner of the suit land and that the respondents were land grabbers. The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Thereafter the respondents filed special leave petition before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to the respondents to file review petition before the High Court. The respondents filed a review petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order in execution proceedings passed on 7.11.2002, the appellant was put into possession of the suit land on 16.12.2002. The respondents filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 7.11.2002 which were dismissed by the High Court by order dated 17.12.2002. The review petitions filed thereagainst before the High Court, were also dismissed. In 2005, the respondents filed a review application before the Special Court seeking review of the order dated 4.11.1997. The respondents subsequently filed the applications before the Special Court for fresh declaration that they were the owners. The Special Court dismissed the said applications. The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents and directed the Special Court to decide the applications afresh on merits, as in the opinion of the High Court, the applications required certain inquiry on factual matters and the claim of the respondents could not have been rejected merely on the determination and attaining finality of orders in earlier proceedings. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In case a litigant files a review application before filing the special leave petition before this Court and it remains pending till the special leave petition stands dismissed, the review application deserves to be considered. However, if a review application is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special leave petition, the process of filing review application amounts to abuse of process of the court. Filing of such a review application by the respondents at a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the court and such an application is not maintainable. Thus, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the review application by the Special Court and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside. [Para 17-18] [66-D-G] M/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivnath Shroff & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 742; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle AIR 1996 SC 3069; Raj Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (1995) 2 Scale 23; Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3277; K. Ajit Babu & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 473; Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1872; Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm & Anr. v. K. Santhakumaran & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1486; Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587; National Housing Coop. Society Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 149; K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy AIR 2001 SC 2316; M/s. Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector, Golaghat, Assam & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 1738; Kumaran Silk Trade (P) Ltd. v. Devendra AIR 2007 SC 1185, relied on. 2.1. The applications filed by the respondents before the Special Court for fresh declaration that they were the owners, were based on the grounds that the earlier judgment and order were obtained by the appellant/applicant suppressing the material facts and the suit land was not identified properly. However, the respondents had never been able to show as to under what circumstances they were interested in the suit land because before the Special Court in the first round, they failed to show any document that land had ever been transferred by the tenure-holders/owners in favour of the Society or the Society had made any allotment in their favour or they were members of the said Society or they obtained any sanction from statutory authority to raise the construction. [Paras 19, 30] [66-G-H; 70- B-C] 2.2. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making at misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a way of cheating intended to get an advantage. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is an anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality, the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud, as the order so obtained is non est. [Paras 20, 25, 26, 27, 28] [67-B; 68-D-E; G-H; 69-A-F] S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853; Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay 1956 All. E.R. 349; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151; State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481; Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers AIR 1992 SC 1555; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1165; District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655; Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Company AIR 2007 SC 2798; Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751; Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma v Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481; Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170; Gowrishankar & Anr. v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836; Kinch v. Walcott (1929) AC 482 28 - relied on. 2.3. There was a registered sale deed dated 21.5.1980 in favour of the appellant/applicant. Nobody had ever filed any application before the competent court to declare said sale deed as null and void. The issue of mis-representation/fraud, suppression of material fact and identification of land was in issue in earlier review petitions before the Special Court and in the writ petitions before the High Court. In this regard, the Special Court in execution proceedings was fully satisfied regarding the identity of land on the basis of revenue record and came to the conclusion that there was no mis-representation or fraud on the part of the appellant/applicant. The Society claimed to have an agreement to sell in its favour which did not confer any title in favour of the Society. A finding of fact had been recorded in earlier proceedings that the appellant/applicant was in actual physical possession of the land and he was illegally/forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. [Paras 31, 33] [72- B-C; 70-E-G] 3. A person in illegal occupation of the land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law. Even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly. The State authorities cannot become the law unto themselves. Even they cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. Government can resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law and not otherwise. The forcible eviction of the appellant/applicant by the respondents was unwarranted and unlawful. The proceedings were initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. It is a special Act to prevent illegal activities of land grabbing. The Legislature, in its wisdom, constituted a Special Court presided over by a person who is or is eligible to be the Judge of the High Court, and consisting of Members who are or are eligible to become a District Judge and District Collector. Therefore, persons having enough experience and who have acquired a higher status have been given responsibility to adjudicate upon the disputes under the Act. That Special Court has been conferred with the powers of civil or criminal courts. As per the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he is not guilty. Thus, it is not like any other criminal case where accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right, however, it is subject to the statutory exceptions, and the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration. Statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, provide for presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. Thus, the Legislature has adopted a deviating course from ordinary criminal law shifting the burden on the accused to prove that he was not guilty. The High Court while deciding these cases has not considered the issue of the locus standi of the respondents to maintain the application for eviction of the appellant/applicant. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. [Paras 34, 36, 37] [72-D-H; 73-B-H; 74-A-B] Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 PC 124; Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 620; Ram Ratan v. State of U.P. AIR 1977 SC 619; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 872; Krishna Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha Vankat Rao AIR 1989 SC 2097; Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh AIR 1995 SC 1377; Bishan Das v. State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1570; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 997; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 134, relied on. Case Law Reference: AIR 1996 SC 742 relied on Para 9 AIR 1996 SC 3069 relied on Para 10 (1995) 2 Scale 23 relied on Para 11 AIR 1997 SC 3277 relied on Para 11 (1997) 6 SCC 473 relied on Para 11 AIR 1998 SC 1872 relied on Para 11 AIR 1999 SC 1486 relied on Para 12 AIR 2000 SC 2587 relied on Para 13 (2005) 12 SCC 149 relied on Para 14 AIR 2001 SC 2316 relied on Para 15 AIR 2004 SC 1738 relied on Para 15 AIR 2007 SC 1185 relied on Para 16 AIR 1994 SC 853 relied on Para 20 1956 All. E.R. 349 relied on Para 20 AIR 1994 SC 2151 relied on Para 21 (1994) 2 SCC 481 relied on Para 21 AIR 1992 SC 1555 relied on Para 22 AIR 2000 SC 1165 relied on Para 23 (1990) 3 SCC 655 relied on Para 24 (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100 relied on Para 24 (2004) 6 SCC 325 relied on Para 24 (2007) 1 SCC 80 relied on Para 24 AIR 2007 SC 2798 relied on Para 24 (2009) 8 SCC 751 relied on Para 24 AIR 1963 SC 1572 relied on Para 25 (1996) 5 SCC 550 relied on Para 25 AIR 2005 SC 3110 relied on Para 25 (2008) 12 SCC 481 relied on Para 25 (2008) 13 SCC 170 relied on Para 25 AIR 1996 SC 2202 relied on Para 26 (2003) 8 SCC 319 relied on Para 26 AIR 2002 SC 33 relied on Para 26 AIR 2003 SC 4628 relied on Para 26 AIR 2004 SC 2836 relied on Para 26 (1929) AC 482 relied on Para 27 AIR 1924 PC 124 relied on Para 34 AIR 1968 SC 620 relied on Para 34 AIR 1977 SC 619 relied on Para 34 AIR 1986 SC 872 relied on Para 34 AIR 1989 SC 2097 relied on Para 34 AIR 1995 SC 1377 relied on Para 35 AIR 1961 SC 1570 relied on Para 36 AIR 1989 SC 997 relied on Para 36 (2002) 4 SCC 134 relied on Para 36 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6656-6657 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.04.2007 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. : 19963 and 19962 of 2006. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, G. Seshagiri Rao, Sridhar Potaraju for the Appellants. M.V. Durga Prasad, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Amar Pal, Bharat J. Joshi, T. Anamika, D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Sanjai Kumar Pathak for the Respondents.