# UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 4 S.C.R. 1198
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-08-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2049 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-anr-v-s-narasimhulu-naidu-dead-through-lrs-and-ors-35068
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 -
ss.2(d) and 8 - Government Grants Act, 1895 - s.2 - Registration
Act, 1908 - s.17 - Respondents-applicants' case that their father
had purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land from one 'SA' and he was
put in possession - Out of the total land purchased by the father of
applicants, some was taken over for the construction of roads - It
was also stated that their father sold the land measuring 4971.5 sq.
yard, however, the remaining 7128.5 sq. yards was retained by him
- Military Contract Committee started constructing sheds on the
land (measuring 4971.5 sq. yards) sold by their father - Purchaser
of the said land (measuring 4971.5 sq. yards) filed suit against
Union of India and respondents were also made party - First suit
was decreed declaring the purchasers as title holders - Respondents
as legal heirs filed an application u/s.8 of the Act alleging that the
land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards was grabbed by Union of India
and relied on the first suit decreed in favour of purchasers - Tribunal
held that findings in the first suit binds the Union of India and
applications were allowed - The High Court affirmed the decision
of the Tribunal - Questions required to be decided before the
Supreme Court: (i) whether the order passed in the first suit filed by
the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court operate as res judicata?;
(ii) whether the appellants have proved their title over the land in
question?; (iii) whether appellant is a land grabber within the section
2(d) of the Act - Held: Though the first suit is between the same
parties, but the subject matter is not the same - Since the issue in
the suit was restricted to 4971.5 sq. yard, the decree would be binding
qua that extent only - The issue cannot be said to be barred by
constructive res judicata as per Explanation IV as it applies to the
plaintiff in a later suit - The appellants have denied the claim of the
plaintiffs in the first suit to the extent that it was the subject matter
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1198
1198
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1199
of that suit alone - Therefore, the decree in the first suit will not
operate as res judicata in the subsequent matters - Since the land in
question was transferred from the State, document of title is not
required to be registered in terms of s.17 of the Registration Act,
1908 and/or in terms of Government Grants Act, 1895 - The letter
dated 19.03.1958 completes the transfer when the possession of
the land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas was handed over to
Union - Appellants claim possession of 1500 acres and 24 guntas,
although appellants have lost claim of 4971.5 sq. yards which is
falling as part of 2 acres and 20 guntas, but that would not lead to
losing of title of appellants over the entire land measuring 2 acres
and 20 guntas - Further, military land register, which is also a public
document (s.74 of the Evidence Act) shows possession of the
appellants over the land - Appellants are owner of the land -
Therefore, appellants are not land grabbers.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The following questions are required to be
decided in the present appeals: (i) whether the order passed in
the first suit filed by the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court
operate as res judicata?; (ii) whether the appellants have proved
their title over the land in question?; (iii) whether appellant is a
land grabber within the section 2(d) of the Act? [Para 24][1226C-D]
2. The The applicants have claimed possession from the
appellants primarily on the ground that in the suit filed by the
plaintiffs on 14.4.1965, the basis of the suit was purchase of land
by the plaintiffs from the father of the applicants. Since the
plaintiffs have been found to be the owners on the basis of
purchase of land from the father of the applicants, therefore, the
issue of title decided in the said suit would operate as res judicata.
Therefore, the appellants herein are land grabbers having no
title over the land in ques

## Text

_Characters 0–39,849 of 82,695. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39849 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2049 of 2013)
AUGUST 27, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 -
ss.2(d) and 8 - Government Grants Act, 1895 - s.2 - Registration
Act, 1908 - s.17 - Respondents-applicants' case that their father
had purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land from one 'SA' and he was
put in possession - Out of the total land purchased by the father of
applicants, some was taken over for the construction of roads - It
was also stated that their father sold the land measuring 4971.5 sq.
yard, however, the remaining 7128.5 sq. yards was retained by him
- Military Contract Committee started constructing sheds on the
land (measuring 4971.5 sq. yards) sold by their father - Purchaser
of the said land (measuring 4971.5 sq. yards) filed suit against
Union of India and respondents were also made party - First suit
was decreed declaring the purchasers as title holders - Respondents
as legal heirs filed an application u/s.8 of the Act alleging that the
land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards was grabbed by Union of India
and relied on the first suit decreed in favour of purchasers - Tribunal
held that findings in the first suit binds the Union of India and
applications were allowed - The High Court affirmed the decision
of the Tribunal - Questions required to be decided before the
Supreme Court: (i) whether the order passed in the first suit filed by
the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court operate as res judicata?;
(ii) whether the appellants have proved their title over the land in
question?; (iii) whether appellant is a land grabber within the section
2(d) of the Act - Held: Though the first suit is between the same
parties, but the subject matter is not the same - Since the issue in
the suit was restricted to 4971.5 sq. yard, the decree would be binding
qua that extent only - The issue cannot be said to be barred by
constructive res judicata as per Explanation IV as it applies to the
plaintiff in a later suit - The appellants have denied the claim of the
plaintiffs in the first suit to the extent that it was the subject matter
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1198
1198
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1199
of that suit alone - Therefore, the decree in the first suit will not
operate as res judicata in the subsequent matters - Since the land in
question was transferred from the State, document of title is not
required to be registered in terms of s.17 of the Registration Act,
1908 and/or in terms of Government Grants Act, 1895 - The letter
dated 19.03.1958 completes the transfer when the possession of
the land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas was handed over to
Union - Appellants claim possession of 1500 acres and 24 guntas,
although appellants have lost claim of 4971.5 sq. yards which is
falling as part of 2 acres and 20 guntas, but that would not lead to
losing of title of appellants over the entire land measuring 2 acres
and 20 guntas - Further, military land register, which is also a public
document (s.74 of the Evidence Act) shows possession of the
appellants over the land - Appellants are owner of the land -
Therefore, appellants are not land grabbers.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The following questions are required to be
decided in the present appeals: (i) whether the order passed in
the first suit filed by the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court
operate as res judicata?; (ii) whether the appellants have proved
their title over the land in question?; (iii) whether appellant is a
land grabber within the section 2(d) of the Act? [Para 24][1226C-D]
2. The The applicants have claimed possession from the
appellants primarily on the ground that in the suit filed by the
plaintiffs on 14.4.1965, the basis of the suit was purchase of land
by the plaintiffs from the father of the applicants. Since the
plaintiffs have been found to be the owners on the basis of
purchase of land from the father of the applicants, therefore, the
issue of title decided in the said suit would operate as res judicata.
Therefore, the appellants herein are land grabbers having no
title over the land in question. It may be reiterated that the
plaintiffs had purchased land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards from
the father of the applicants whereas the remaining land measuring
7128.5 sq. yards was retained by the applicants. Therefore, the
decree in the first suit was only in respect of the schedule property
in the first suit i.e. 4971.5 sq. yards. The patta, the basis of title
of the applicants had not been produced in evidence before the
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
Tribunal. Thus, the basic document of title had not been produced.
[Para 25][1226-E-G]
3. In the first suit, the father of the applicants had not filed
any counter claim to assert title or possession over the land in
question. The land admeasuring 4971.5 sq. yards was a schedule
property and the subject matter of the first suit. The issue no. 1
in the first suit was in respect of the possession of the plaintiffs
and their predecessor-in-interest over the 'suit land' within 12
years prior to the suit. Therefore, the rights of the plaintiffs were
examined in respect of such suit land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards
alone, although, to return the finding on possession and title,
possession of the father of the applicants over the land purchased
by the Plaintiff was clubbed together on the basis of patta claimed
to be granted to 'SA', though not produced or proved on record.
[Para 26][1227-A-C]
4. In the second suit filed by the applicants, the entire basis
of suit was the findings returned in the first suit. There is no
independent evidence produced in respect of purchase of land
by 'SA' and the legality or validity of Patta issued to him. Although,
applicants have asserted that they have been visiting the land in
question to verify their possession but apart from such plea, there
is no evidence that there was any covert and overt act on the
part of the plaintiffs to assert possession over the land in question.
[Para 27][1227-C-D]
5. In fact, the appellants had entered into a settlement with
the plaintiffs by which some of the land in possession was given
to the decree holder in execution with the leave of the Court on
19.8.1995. Such action would show the assertion of title by the
appellants so as to enter into exchange of land in satisfaction of
the decree. The father of the applicants was party in the execution
proceedings but has not objected to the exchange. It necessarily
leads to an inference that the father of the applicants was not in
possession and has not asserted the title or possession over the
remaining land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards. On the other hand,
the appellants have categorically asserted that they are in
possession of the land from the date of transfer in the year 1958
when the Collector of Hyderabad handed over the possession to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1201
them. The appellants continued to be in unhanded possession
over the last 30 years. [Para 28][1227-E-G]
The applicants have not claimed any title to the land which
is claimed to be in their possession and the subject matter of the
first suit was only 4971.5 sq. yards. Hence, the decree in the said
suit is binding qua the land in suit only. [Para 36][1233-F-G]
6. Though the first suit is between the same parties, but
the subject matter is not the same. For res judicata to apply, the
matter in the former suit must have been alleged by one party
and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly by the other.
Since the issue in the suit was restricted to 4971.5 sq. yards, the
decree would be binding qua to that extent only. The issue cannot
be said to be barred by constructive res judicata as per
Explanation IV as it applies to the plaintiff in a later suit. The
appellants have denied the claim of the plaintiffs in the first suit
to the extent that it was the subject matter of that suit alone.
Therefore, the decree in the first suit will not operate as res
judicata in the subsequent matters. [Para 37][1233-G-H; 1234A-B]
7. Now, the second question as to whether the appellants
have proved their title over the land in question is examined.
The appellants claim title over the land in question. Since the
land is transferred from the State, document of title is not required
to be registered in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act,
1908 and/or in terms of Government Grants Act, 1895. The area
of Asafnagar lines is 378 acres 16 guntas. In the appendix to the
letter dated 10.10.1956, the details of the land comprising in the
area measuring 378 acres 16 guntas is mentioned, which includes
2 acres 20 guntas of Miniature Rifle Range. Such land is reflected
as in a Mallapally Area. The total area of Mallapally area and
Asafnagar Lines is 378 acres and 16 guntas. The Mallapalli Lines
is non-ISF Lines measuring 450 acres and 12 guntas which is
distinct from Asafnagar Lines falling in ISF area measuring 378
acres and 16 guntas. Thus, Mallapally area and Mallapalli Lines
are two different parcels of the land. The land in question herein
is part of Asafnagar Lines handed over to the appellants as ISF
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
Lines. The letter dated 19.3.1958 completes the transfer when
the possession of land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas was
handed over to the Union. [Para 41][1235-D-G]
The appellants claim to be in possession over the land
measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas from the year 1958. Although,
the appellants have lost claim in respect of land measuring 4971.5
sq. yards which is falling as part of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land,
but that would not lead to losing of the title of the appellants over
the entire land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas. [Para 42][1235H; 1236-A]
8. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Government
Grants Act, 1895 read with Section 17(2)(vii) of the Registration
Act, 1908, transfer of land to the appellant is complete. The
appellant is the owner of the aforesaid land. The applicants have
not produced any document regarding the patta in favour of Shaik
Ahmed. They have not proved the title of their vendor so as to
claim a rightful title over the land in question. Further, no patta
could be granted to the applicants as the land was transferred by
the State in their favour on 19.3.1958 and possession was claimed
on the strength of sale deeds executed on 12.12.1959. [Para
43][1236-B-C]
9. Apart from the fact that the transfer of title in favour of
the Union is complete when the possession was delivered, but
even thereafter, the military land register and general land
register produced by the appellants show the possession of the
appellants over such land. The military land register and general
land register are public documents within the meaning of Section
74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) containing
the records of the acts of the sovereign authority i.e., the Union
as well as official body. Still further, Section 114 of the Evidence
Act grants presumption of correctness being an official act having
been regularly performed. Therefore, in the absence of any
evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly,
the official record containing entries of ownership and possession
would carry the presumption of correctness. In view of the transfer
of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1203
19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads
to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in
possession of the suit land. [Para 44][1236-C-F]
10. The third question is to examine whether the appellants
are land grabbers and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a
petition under the Act. The objection of the appellants that they
are not land grabbers and that the State Legislature will have no
jurisdiction over the property of the Union need not to be
examined in view of the finding that the appellants are in fact
owners of the land in question. [Para 45][1236-F-G]
K. Ethirajan (Dead) by LRs. v. Lakshmi & Ors. (2003)
10 SCC 578 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 33 - held
inapplicable.
Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010) 10 SCC
141 : [2010] 11 SCR 756; Daryao & Ors. v. State of
U.P. & Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1457 : [1962] SCR 574;
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. All India Manufacturers
Organisation & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 683 : [ 2006] 1
Suppl. SCR 86; Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas
(2005) 13 SCC 1; Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and
Others (1995) 3 SCC 693 : [1995] 2 SCR 975;
Govindammal (Dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Vaidiyanathan
& Ors. (2019) 17 SCC 433 : [2019] 17 SCC 433 -
relied on.
Munni Bibi (since deceased) & Anr. v. Tirloki Nath &
Ors. AIR 1931 PC 114 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 33
held inapplicable
Para 23
[2010] 11 SCR 756
relied on
Para 30
[1962] SCR 574
relied on
Para 31
[2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 86
relied on
Para 32
[1995] 2 SCR 975
relied on
Para 34
(2019) 17 SCC 433
relied on
Para 35
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2049
of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2011 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 26811
of 2008.
With
Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2012.
Vinay Navare, B. Adi Narayana Rao, R. Balasubramanian,
Sr. Advs., D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Aman Shukla,
Hathindra Manda, Dasari Muralee Mohan, Abhijit Sengupta, Pramod
Dayal, Ms. Prerna Singh, K. Subba Rao, K. Satyanarayana Murthy,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Chandra Prakash, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Swati
Ghildiyal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against an order passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh on 25.4.2011 whereby
an order passed by the Special Court, Hyderabad1 under the Andhra
Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 19822 on 19.9.2008 was not
interfered with.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeals are that the respondent
Nos. 1 to 63 being legal heirs of Late Sri S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu filed an
application under Section 8 of the Act before the Tribunal alleging that
the land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards in Survey No. 299/2 (old Survey
No. 403/1), Ward No. 8, Block-3, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, is the
land grabbed by the Union of India. It was pleaded that a notification is
required under Section 8(6) of the Act, which was published in the extra
ordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 22.1.2004 but no objections
against the same were received. The applicants alleged that their father
had purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 299/2 from one
Shri Shaik Ahmed under two registered sale deeds dated 12.12.1959
(Exhs. A1 and A2). The purchaser, i.e., the father of the applicants was
put in possession thereof. Out of the total land purchased by the father
1 For short, the 'Tribunal'
2 For short, the 'Act'
3 Hereinafter referred to as the 'applicants'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1205
of the applicants, 7 guntas of land was taken over for the purpose of
widening of road and remaining part i.e. 2 acres 20 guntas (12100 sq.
yards) was held by him. It was further alleged by the applicants that
their father sold the land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards out of 12100 sq.
yards in Survey No. 299/2 with specific boundaries via registered sale
deed dated 20.3.1964 (Ex.A3). The remaining part of the land i.e., 7128.5
sq. yards was however retained by their father.
3. It was alleged that the Military Contract Committee started
constructing sheds on the land sold by the father of the applicants. As a
result, the purchasers filed original suit4 on or about 14.4.1965 against
the Union of India, State of Andhra Pradesh and the father of the
applicants, which was later assigned as suit OS No. 175 of 1970 (Old
No. 72 of 1965). The Plaintiff claimed that his vendor Shaik Ahmed and
then the father of the applicants was the owner in possession of the
property since purchase of the property on 20.3.1964, but the contractors
of the first defendant, the appellant herein, trespassed into the schedule
property on 12.7.1964. The Plaintiff thus sought possession of the land
purchased or in the alternative, recovery of sale consideration paid to
the father of the applicants. It was inter-alia pleaded as under:-
"4. Under these circumstances, Sri Shaik Ahmed sold the entire
Ac.2-27 guntas of the said property to Sri S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu,
I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch (C.I.D.),
Hyderabad, the 3rd defendant herein by means of two sale deeds
dated 12-12-1959 and put the latter in possession of the same.
While in possession and enjoyment of the same, and paying taxes
thereon, the said Sri S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu (the third defendant
herein) sold 4971 1⁄2 square yards of site out of the said S.No.299/
2, of Shaikpet village more fully described in the schedule given
below and herein after called the schedule property to the plaintiffs
herein by means of a sale deed dated 20-3-1964 for a consideration
of Rs. 28,000/-. Ever since the date of sale, the plaintiffs herein
have been in undisputed possession and enjoyment of the schedule
property. Thus the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule
property enjoying the same with absolute rights."
4. The schedule property was the property purchased by the
plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the father of the applicants, it
was stated that the said defendant had perfect right and legal title to the
4 Hereinafter referred to as the 'first suit'
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
land when he effected sale in favour of the Plaintiffs. The said defendant
asserted that he had no objection to the Plaintiff suit being decreed. It is
pertinent to mention that the said defendant had not filed any counter
claim of possession of the remaining land after selling the land to the
Plaintiff. The parties went to trial on the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest had
title to and possession over the suit land within 12 years prior to
the suit?
2. Whether the suit land belonged to Ex-Hyderabad State Army
and whether it was subsequently handed over to defendant No.1
in 1958?
3. Whether the patta and the settlement relied upon by the plaintiff
were cancelled and if so, whether the cancellation is legal and
valid?
4. Whether the suit land was auctioned by defendant No.1 for
grazing and grass cutting?
5. To what damage if any, are the plaintiffs entitled against the 3rd
defendant alternatively?
6. To what relief, if any are the plaintiffs entitle?"
5. The Learned Trial Court decided Issue No. 1, whereby the
following findings were recorded: -
"19. Another piece of evidence available from the material on
record is Ex.B.22. It is a letter from the Tahsildar (West) to the
commissioner of the Municipality wherein it is clearly mentioned
that No.299/2 is the patta land of Shaik Ahmed and that Abdul
Gani named mentioned has no concern with it. Third one is the
order of the land record officer B.21 wherein it is clearly mentioned
that S.No.129/(ld) and 403 (new) measuring (7) acres was granted
as patta to Shaik Ahmed this material is quite sufficient to conclude
that Shaik Ahmed has his possession over the suit land since 1339
Fasli."
20. Next point to be considered is whether Shaik Ahmed sold the
suit land to the third defendant. His totally manifest by the two
agreement of sale B.2 and B.3 and the two subsequent register
sale deeds Ex.B.4 and B.5. In this matter B.7 entered witness
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1207
box. Shaik Ahmed is stated to have died few years ago. DW-2
has testified this matter. Third defendant as DW.1 stated that he
purchased the land in 1959 and shortly after one Heeralal filed a
suit against him claiming the suit land. That suit ultimately ended
in a compromise. Ex.B.26 and B.27 are the two receipts of
Heeralal in acknowledgement of the receipt of money and also
about compromising the matter.
21. Ex.B.28 to show that Chintal Basti Samshan Committee
member objected and alleged that a portion of the suit land was
the grade land and therefore, the third defendant cannot occupy
it. In that connection, the third defendant made a compromise by
giving some land as well as some cash amount to the said
committee members and ended that matter. According to D.3 he
did not find time to construct his proposed house on account of
the above mentioned dispute. Meanwhile the plaintiffs approached
him and he sold the suit land to them. The Sale Deed executed by
him i.e. within four months the alleged encroachments was made.
In this brief period the plaintiffs were not expected to do any thing
in exercising of their rights as purchasers. These facts coupled
with the documents stated above, are quite sufficient to conclude
that the plaintiff and their predecessors in title and undoubted
by their possession over the suit land within twelve years prior
to the alleged trespass. In other words, the plaintiffs have
successfully, discharged the onus placed on them under issue No.1,
therefore find this issue in the affirmative.
(Emphasis Supplied)
27...........................Thus viewed from any perspective there
is no material to believe that the suit belonged to the Ex Hyderabad
State Army and that is was subsequently handed over by the
Second defendant to the first defendant. I therefore, find this issue
in the negative."
6. The suit was thus decreed on 13.8.1970 declaring the plaintiffs
as title holders of the suit property. An appeal was filed by the Union of
India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh but the said appeal was
dismissed on 31.3.1975. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the suit filed execution
petition in which the applicants had chosen not to participate. The father
of the applicants died on 17.6.1993. Thereafter, the applicants invoked
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
7. The applicants asserted before the Tribunal that they are original
owners of the land in question and the Government had no right or title
over the property. While relying upon proceedings initiated by the
Plaintiffs, the applicants asserted as follows:-
"....................The said suit as contested and the Hon'ble 4th
Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had decided the issues
of title and possession along with other issues vide judgment and
decree dated 13.08.1970. It is submitted that the Hon'ble IV
Additional Judge had held that our father is the owner and was in
possession of the property since more than twelve years."
8. The appellant herein filed a written statement, inter alia, pleading
that the application is not maintainable as it does not disclose the facts
relating to the alleged land grabbing. It was also pleaded that the facts
narrated by the applicants themselves show that they have lost their
possession long ago and after being dispossessed, the applicants had
failed to take any steps to get the land restored to them. The filing of the
suit and dismissal of appeal was accepted. It was also pleaded that in
execution of the previous decree, the decree holder and the applicants
had entered into a written compromise which was filed in execution
application No. 220/95 seeking recording of satisfaction of the decree.
In such proceedings, the Union proposed for exchange of the defence
land with the decretal land in response to a letter dated 19.8.1995. In
terms of such compromise, possession of the land measuring 4971.5 sq.
yards was delivered to the decree holder on 14.12.1995. It was stated
that the schedule land is a defence land and appellant is not a land grabber.
It was further asserted that the Tribunal was not competent to decide
the title of the appellant for it being defence land. Still further, it was
stated that the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was in possession of
the applicants since 1.4.1958 when it was handed over to the Government
of India, Ministry of Defence by the Collector, Hyderabad. The stand of
the appellant in the written statement inter-alia is as under:-
"7............................ Therefore, the Statement of the
applicant that since the construction was started in the land
belonging to the subsequent purchasers, they filed the suit is
appears to be absolutely ridiculous because the whole extent of
the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was under the possession
of the defence and the applicant had not claimed the suit schedule
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1209
land at any point of time before 16.01.1996. So it could be clearly
seen that the suit schedule land was under the possession of the
defence more than 30 years before claiming by the applicant.
The contention of the applicant that IV Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad held that his father is the owner and was
in possession of the property since more than 12 years is wrong.
The Hon'ble Judge in issue No. 6 had stated that the "Vendor",
the third defendant has satisfactorily proved by adducing oral as
well as documentary evidence that he as well as his predecessorsin-title, Shaik Ahmed were in possession of the suit land i.e. only
4971 sq. yards whereas the applicant is claiming the remaining
extent of land msg 7128.5 sq. yards.
8......................... To settle the matter, the Government of
India, Ministry of Defence vide post copy of telegram No. 31/27/
L/L&C/64 dated 11.08.1995 conveyed approval for exchange of
the defence land with that of decretal land within Pension
Paymaster's Office. Accordingly the Counsel for the decree
holders have accepted the said exchange proposal on 19.08.1995.
On receipt of the acceptance, joint survey was conducted to mark
the decretal land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards. Accordingly a plan
showing the total extent of the defence land, the land already
decreed by the lower court in OS No. 175/1970. Accordingly an
extent of land admeasuring 4971.5 sq. yards handed over the
decree holders by a proceedings dated 14.12.1995 of the Advocate
Commissioner and the Contempt Case No. 411/1995 was finally
closed on 15.12.1995, since land was handed over to the parties
as per the compromise Memo.
xxxx
xxxx
10 ....................................The above land is under the
possession of the Union of India for the last several years which
is more than 30 years. Shri S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu so called owner
of the subject land did not filed any suit of claiming the property
which is under the occupation of the Union of India for the last
more than 30 years. The said S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu was only
Defendant No.3 in the above suit and appeal and as such by virtue
of the decree passed in the said cases do not create a right in
favour of Sri S.V. Narsimhulu Naidu to claim any land which is
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
under the occupation of Union of India on the basis of below
grounds:-
 xxxx
xxxx
13. With regard to unnumbered para 14 to 16 of the petition, it is
submitted that the contention of the applicant in this para is that
they are the owners of the schedules land is hereby denied. Land
admeasuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Shaikpet Village,
Golconda Mandal Hyderabad which was the property of Nizam
forces and used as "Minature Rifle Range" was handed over to
the Government of India, Ministry of Defence on 01.04.1958 vide
Board proceedings dated 19.03.1958 by the Collector and the same
is vested with the Government of India under Article 295 (i) of
the Constitution of India. Being a defence land, the department is
not the land grabber. For the defence land enactment of the
Parliament is applicable whereas Land Grabbing Court is having
jurisdiction only on the State Land.
It is submitted that on the basis of uninterrupted possession
of the defence over the schedule property from more than last 30
years and as the Land Grabbing Court is having the jurisdiction
only on the State Land the above case is not maintainable before
this Hon'ble Court....".
9. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues on the basis
of pleadings of the parties:
"(1) Whether the applicants are the owners of the application
schedule property?
(2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid
and binding on the applicants?
(3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning
of the Act XII of 1982?
(4) Whether the respondents prescribed title by adverse
possession?
(5) To what relief?"
10. The appellants had never asserted their possession as adverse
or hostile to the knowledge of true owner. The plea of the appellant was
that they are in possession of the said property as owners for the last 30
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1211
years. Therefore, issues were not correctly framed. Accordingly, Issue
Nos. 1 and 2 were decided together.
11. In evidence, the applicants examined PW 1 - S. Janardhan
who had produced sale deeds by which their father had purchased the
land but the patta said to be executed in favour of Shaik Ahmed was not
produced. A perusal of the two sale deeds Ex A1 and A2 executed by
the said Shaik Ahmed also does not disclose the date of any patta. Thus,
in the present proceedings, neither the sale deeds have mentioned about
the patta nor such patta had been produced or proved on record. In fact,
the entire claim is based upon the judgment in the first suit, which is
evident from the statement of PW 1, when he said that "a Division
Bench of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1990 has categorically
held that once the Hon'ble Court upheld the title and possession in earlier
proceedings, it is not open for any one of the authorities to deny the
same taking untenable pleases. Once the source of title is common, any
party taking a different plea in subsequent proceedings is barred by res
judicata".
12. The Tribunal inter-alia returned the following findings:
"52. Srinivasulu Naidu purchased the land under Exs.A-1 and A2 in the year 1959. There is a finding in that suit that 12 years
prior to filing of the suit, Shaik Ahmed and Srinivasulu Naidu
had been in possession of the land. So the land has been in
their continuous possession since 1949-50. Delivery of Acs.2.27
guntas of land to the Defence by the State Government is only a
paper delivery as per Ex.B14 proceedings. So it can be inferred
that actual delivery of land of Acs. 2.27 guntas was not made and
it is only a paper delivery. This land alone was not alleged to have
been delivered as per Ex.B14 proceedings dt. 19-3-58. About
Acs.1500-24 guntas of land in four different plots in different areas
was ordered to be delivered by the State Government to the Union
of India. According to the Union of India, Acs.2.27 guntas is part
of Asfanagar lines which is shown as item No. V in Ex.B-14 at
page No.2.
xx
xx
xx
57. The contention of the Advocate for the respondents is that
when the Union of India claimed that it is in possession since
1958 in the suit OS 175/70, title to the balance land is to be decided
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
elsewhere. It is further contended that Exs. A1 and A2 sale deeds
are valid and title passed to the applicants but to show whether
Shaik Ahmed had title or not for the remaining land, suit is not
filed by the applicants. Therefore, the applicants waived their right
and their claim is time barred. When a finding is given in the
suit that State Government which gave land to Union of India
has no title and that Srinivasulu Naidu and his vendor had
title, there is no need for Srinivasulu Naidu to file another
suit for declaration of his title.
xx
xx
xx
59. If the land which was delivered to R-1 herein and to the other
decree holders in execution proceedings, in exchange of suit
schedule land owned by Srinivasulu Naidu, the exchange itself is
illegal. Without establishing title to the remaining land by the Union
of India the Union of India has entered into the compromise for
exchange of the Application schedule land. A Compromise can
be made between the decree holders and judgment debtors with
regard to the decree schedule land only but it should not be in
respect of some other land not covered by the decree. For retaining
the decreetal schedule property by Judgment Debtors, some other
land which is not subject matter of the suit was given to the decree
holders. Union of India was aware that this land which was
delivered to decree holders in exchange was mentioned as
boundary to the decreetal schedule property belonged to Srinivasulu
Naidu. Srinivasulu Naidu was a party to the suit. Even though
no relief is granted against Srinivasulu Naidu in the said suit,
at-least notice should be given to Srinivasulu Naidu or
Srinivasulu Naidu should be made party to the compromise,
when he claimed title and possession to that land which was
given to the decree holders in exchange.
xx
xx
xx
90. In the case on hand the title to the application schedule land is
not in issue in the earlier suit. The issue was with regard to the
title for the suit schedule land which was purchased by the plaintiffs
from Srinivasulu Naidu. Exs.A1 and A2 are the sale deeds which
were relied on by the plaintiffs to establish their title for 4971 sq.
yards. For the remaining land there was no issue. No finding is
given with regard to the title for the remaining land of Srinivasulu
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1213
Naidu. The remaining land of Srinivasulu Naidu's is shown as
boundary on three sides of the suit land purchased by the plaintiffs
from Srinivasulu Naidu. A finding is given in the suit that the land
purchased by Srinivasulu Naidu under Ex.A1 and A2 is patta land
of Shaik Ahmed. To decide the title of the plaintiffs in 4971 sq.
yards title of Srinivasulu Naidu covered by Exs.A1 and A2 was
also considered. Therefore, there is identity of title in OS 175/70
and in this land grabbing case. Hence, the finding in the suit binds
the respondents.
91. The findings in the suit binds the Union of India as the
title in the two litigations is one and the same. The State
Government did not prefer the appeal against the Judgment
and decree in OS 175/70. The Union of India claims title
through the State Government. In the suit, a finding is given
that the land is a patta land of Shaik Ahmed and not the State
Government land. Therefore, that finding became final and binds
both the Governments and other parties to the suit. The appeal
CCCA No-30/1972 preferred by the Union of India against the
judgment and decree passed in suit OS 175/70 was dismissed by
the Hon'ble High Court. A finding was given by the High Court
that the land covered by Exs.B-38 marked in the i.e. the land
covered by Ex.B25 herein was not correlated to the suit land.
The suit land is part of the land covered by Exs.A1 and A2 sale
deeds herein. The Union of India contends that the entire land of
Acs.2.20 guntas was delivered as per Ex.B38 proceedings. In
the letter dt. 25-4-1960 which was addressed by the Tahsildar,
Hyderabad to the Collector Hyderabad District it is mentioned
that the tounch map available in this office shows that Sy.No.
299/2 is the same place where the rifle range is shown in the map
of I.S.F lands, Mallepally. Neither the tounch map nor the map of
ISF lands has been produced. The letter therefore loses all its
importance. The letter however, shows that patta was sanctioned
to Shaik Ahmed prior to the preparation of the maps." (Emphasis
supplied)
13. The High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
affirmed the order of the Tribunal and held as under:
"17. Originally, the land to an extent of Acs.2.27 gts in Sy.No.
299/2 was purchased by S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu, the father of the
UNION OF INDIA v. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
applicants under Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds. After Ac.0.07 gts of
land was affected in road widening, the remaining extent of land
is Acs.2.20 gts equivalent to 12,100 sq. yards, out of which, 4,971
sq. yards was sold by the father of the applicants to one V. Krishna
Murthy and others under Ex.A3. Now, the disputed land is 7,128.5
sq. yards. The possession of land to an extent of Acs.2.20 gts by
Srinivasulu Naidu from 1959 to 1964 was established in O.S. No.
175 of 1970 wherein the dispute with regard to the land to an
extent of 4,971.5 sq. yards out of Acs.2.27 gts between V. Krishna
Murthy and others/plaintiffs with the Union of India/respondent
has been decided through the judgment and decree dated
13.08.1970. The delivery of the land to an extent of Acs.2.27 gts
to the Union of India by the State Government was negatived in
that suit. The possession of Srinivasulu Naidu in the land on three
sides of the decretal land is admitted by R.W.2 as per the contents
of Ex.B21. Since the said judgment and decree in O.S. No. 175
of 1990 had attained finality in view of the dismissal of appeal
being CCCA No. 30 of 1972 filed by the Union of India, the
plaintiffs have proceeded for its execution. Therefore, the father
of the applicants had got title and possession over the part of the
land sold by him.
18. The contention of the Union of India that the entire land to an
extent of Acs.2.20 gts was delivered to the Central Government
as per Ex.B28 proceedings cannot be accepted as the land to an
extent of Acs.2.20 gts was shown as Minature Rifle Range at
Mallepally village area as per Ex.B14 and not in Shaikpet village
and as such, the Special Court held that the land to an extent of
Acs.2.20 gts covered by Exs.A1 and A2 belongs to Srinivasulu
Naidu and they are valid documents.
19. When the execution proceedings are pending, respondent No.1
claimed 1/3rd share in the entire land covered by the decree in
O.S. No.175 of 1990 as assignee from one of the decree holders
i.e., V. Krishna Murthy under assignment deed dated 18.03.1992,
which admittedly has not been produced before the Court. To
avoid demolition of the Pension Payment Office and to avoid the
contempt proceedings, the Union of India made exchange offer
to five equal extent of vacant land lying adjacent to the decree
schedule property though it is not its property. The Special Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1215
observed that after exchange, an extent of 2627.87 sq. yards
covered by decree shown as 'B' portion is delivered to R1 and
also observed that respondent No.1 got possession of the land of
Srinivasulu Naidu after exchange, his possession is illegal and
unlawful."
14. The order passed by the Tribunal and that of the High Court
was based on the decree in OS No. 175/1970 though the said suit was
only in respect of 4971.5 sq. yards comprising in Survey No. 299/2. The
plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit had pleaded that the applicants had
purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land vide two sale deeds and that the
plaintiffs are purchasers of 4971.5 sq. yards.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the subject matter
of the first suit was only 4971.5 sq. yards which was purchased by the
plaintiffs. The issue was in respect of title of the plaintiffs over the said
land alone. Though there was an issue as to whether the land belongs to
Hyderabad State Army and that it has been handed over to the Union in
1958, but such issue was decided against the appellants.