(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari declaring the impugned judgment of the Land Grabbing Court in L.G.C.No. 46 of 1989 dated 30-10-1995 as illegal, arbitrary and inoperative, and consequently to allow L.G.C.No. 46 of 1989 as prayed for.
(2.) Before the commencement of the arguments of Mr. Mahmood All, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6 - Society, raised a preliminary objection stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the rights finally decided in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 by a Division bench of this Court, which arose out of O.S.No. 29 of 1965 decided by the learned II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
(3.) On raising such an objection, Mr. Mahmood Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted at the Bar that the writ petition is maintainable if it is shown that the impugned judgment itself is erroneous on the face of it. In support of his contention, he relied upon a ruling reported in Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh and others, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that if the judgment is fraudulent or collusive, it may be challenged in a later suit or proceeding and it is not necessary to file an independent suit for declaration or for setting it aside, more so where public property is in jeopardy. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association v. Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev and others wherein the Full Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that Section 44 of the Evidence Act empowers the Court to declare a judgment or an administrative order as void on the ground of fraud. Further reliance was placed on a ruling reported in Janatha Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarana Sangha and others, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that where the charge or misappropriation of goods was established in the domestic enquiry and the delinquent employee was dismissed, the Labour Court erred in directing his reinstatement with 25% back wages on the ground that his past record was without blemish and a proved case of misappropriation does not call for any sympathy. With these rulings, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the writ petition is maintainable.