LAW FOR ALL

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 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 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 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. = 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 clear with their stand on their title. ; 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. ;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.