CH SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petiion is filed by the owners of the residential sites in S.No. 318/1 of Gaddi Annaram Village, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner had purchased an extent of 1556 square yards in plot No. 40 under two registered sale deeds dated 29-12-1981, while the second petitioner purchased 1210 square yards in plot No. 24 under registered sale deed dated 16-1-1966. The third petitioner claims that his father had purchased an extent of 2420 square yards in the same survey number through a registered sale deed dated 28-4-1966 and equally is the ground stated by the fourth petitioner that he became the owner of 1210 square yards in the said survey number having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 20-1-1966. In so far as the fifth petitioner is concerned, it is a Cooperative Housing Society and that previously having completed a venture of construction of residential quarters for its members, for a second venture they have purchased 5200 square yards in the above survey number. The total extent of the above, plots purchased by the petitioners admeasures 11596 square yards, which is equal to a little less than 2 acres. THIS lis arises out of an action take by the 1 st respondent herein in treating the unauthorised constructions raised over the above extents of lands by the petitioners, as slum areas and consequential issuance of notification to that effect under the provisions of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (in brief 'the Act'), gazetting the same in A.P. Gazette No. 19, dated 12-5-1986. The same was done in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Act, and the consequential action of issuance of notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act, was done by a later notification dated 28-7-1986. The writ petitioners seek to set aside the notifications as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural principles of justice. It is further argued that the same is also infractive of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the constitutional guarantee provided under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter stating that Gandhinagar slum area had come up in an area of 72,600 square yards equivalent to Acs. 15.00, that the same was identified by the Officers' Committee, and on the recommendation of the said committee, the Government had approved this slum as unobjectionable slum vide G.O. Ms. No. 3250, Revenue, dated 24-7-1980, which stands at SI. No. 5 of the approved list of 455 slums and that the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under the Act is valid and that there is no legal infirmity in the same and that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. It is further averred, in the said counter-affidavit in paragraph-4 thereof that the land claimed by the petitioners is a "Sarkari i.e., Government land, that though in some proceedings it was held that the land was not a Government land and belonged to the predecessors in title of the petitioners i.e. H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad, the same are not final and that still a review petition filed by the Collector before the Government is pending. With regard to civil proceedings, it is stated that as the Government was not a party to the Civil proceedings, js not bound by the same. A reference Is also made to W.P. No. 11921/86 which was filed by the Hut and Slum Dwellers Association, Gandhinagar, and that by order dated 31-10-1989 this Court gave a direction not to dispossess them. But, I found from that order that the above writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the petitioner's - association should pursue alternative remedies, emphatically holding that they have no title to the land in their occupation and four months time was granted for the purpose and unitl the said period of four months a protection of stay of dispossession was granted. But till date nothing is placed before me to hold that the said order passed by this court has been complied with. The said four months period lapsed long back and the said order also had become final. On the other hand, the writ petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and in O.P. Nos. 69 and 92 of 1986 filed by the petitioners herein, the special Tribunal (Chief Judge, Cityy Civil Court, Hyderabad) by its judgment dated 26-6-1989 allowed the said O.Ps. after a full-fledged enquiry. The slum dwellers for whose benefit the impugned notifications have been issued, are parties in the said judicial proceedings through their Association which was made as respondent. The above Tribunal has held categorically that the members of Gandhinagar Slum Dwellers Association have grabbed the land of the petitioners and that they are liable to be evicted from the said land. The relief granted was : "In the result, both the petitions are allowed declaring the petitioners as owners of the land described in the schedule to the respective petitions and that the respondent-association and the occupants of the said land as land-grabbers and directing that the petitioners to be put in possession of the respective petition schedule land after evicting the members of the respondent-association, who are in possession of the same. The petitioners in each of the petitions are awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/- and the respondent- association is directed to pay the same to the petitioners." THIS judgment had become final and effect has got to be given to this judgment and it is executable being a lawful decree granted by a competent Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. It is incomprehensible to countenance the argument that despite the said order of eviction, which has been passed against the slum dwellers for whose benefit the impugned notifications have been issued, the encroachment should be regularised under the guise of the impugned notifications issued under Act. THIS action of the respondents to supersede the judicial decision by an executive action thereby scuttling the very judicial decision, is impermissible. No. Law, impliedly or expressly, authorise the respondents to take such a course. Even if any law enacts such a provision, the same would be affort to judicial decision rendered and would be void and unconstitutional. It is not as if a judicial decision which is rendered is rendered inexecutable by a legislative act of amendment viewing the basis of the judgment. That being not so, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right over the lands in question which they have purchased by a valid means of registered conveyance and for valuable consideration. If the impugned notifications are held to be vallid, it only means that the encroachers can intrude into anybody's land and by catching hold of executives, can get their encroachment validated under the guise and rouse of terming it as a 'slum' and by declaring so in colourable exercise of the powers under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Land Acquistion) Act, 1956 and then deprive the lawful owners of their valuable rights. Permitting the same to be done in that fashion, it only results the approval of criminal and illegal acts of encroachment which are condemned under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, which was enacted for these special purposes of removing of the acts of land grabbing, apart from the common law remedy, keeping in view of the experience of trauma and hardship being suffered by the lawful owners of the immovable properties, particularly vacant lands, which are vulnerable for such a flash land grabbing, some times even over night by putting some huts, then slowly transforming the same into semi-houses and houses. Approval of such an action does not amount to deprivation of the persons with authority of law. On the other hand, it results, in giving a key of the house to a thief, permitting him to rob the house. May be, when A.P. Slum Improvement (Land Acquistioin) Act, 1956 was enacted, the legislature did not anticipate this kind of strategy to be adopted by the unsocial elements to grab the land, put up the slums and then claim the protection under the above Act for regularisation. Scanning through the provisions of the Act, leaves one, in no doubt that the said Act do not intend to permit the land grabbers turning them into lawful possessors, under the guise of the notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act and certainly not after a judicial verdict that the slum dwellers are land grabbers. In any event of the matter, as the slum dwellers have suffered a decree for eviction, having been held that they are land grabbers and the said order of eviction having become final, supersedes the impugned notif cations and the said orders of, eviction can be executed by the petitioners by taking recourse to the remedies available under law. The impugned notifications are thus set-aside for the reasons stated supra.

(2.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed; but with no order.