IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5841-5845 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.23859-23863 of 2007]
PARVEEN JEHAN BEGUM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
S. ANJAIAH GOUD & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 5th
November, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in five different writ
petitions filed by the appellant herein.
Briefly stated, the facts which gave rise to the writ petitions are that
two land grabbing cases were filed, being LGC Nos. 122/99 and 75/2001, by the
respondents herein, alleging that the appellant had wrongfully and illegally
occupied certain portions of the land which belonged to them and thereby
committed an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition)
Act, 1982.
The said two cases were taken up by a Bench of
-2-
two Members of the Special Court constituted under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act
consisting of the Judicial member and a Revenue member. After considering the
case made out on behalf of the respective parties, the two members differed in their
views while delivering the final order. We need not go into the question of
difference between the members. In terms of Section 7(4B)(e) of the aforesaid
Act, the separate opinions of the two members were placed before the Chairman
and the Chairman himself took up the matter for delivering his opinion in the
matter. While the matter was pending before the Chairman, several interlocutory
applications were filed by the appellant herein, which, we are informed, are 12 in
number. The same were filed in two stages, and at the first stage IA Nos. 422 to
426 of 2007 were filed. At the second stage, 7 more interlocutory applications,
namely, I.As. 33 to 37, 80 and 81 of 2008 were also filed.
It is the case of the appellant that despite submissions having been
made before the Chairman for hearing of the said applications first, the Chairman
chose not to do so and proceeded with the main case. As against the same the 5
writ petitions came to be filed before the
-3-
High Court. The same prayer was made before the High Court which was
rejected with the direction that the applications and the main case could be heard
together and there was no case for having the said interlocutory applications
decided separately before the main matter was heard.
It is against the said order of the High Court that these appeals have
been filed.
Having heard Mr. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the appellant, and
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that
there is substance in the submissions made by Mr. Ahmadi regarding the disposal
of the interlocutory applications before the main case is taken up for hearing.
However, we are also conscious of the fact that the matter has been pending since
1999. Accordingly, in order to prevent further delay in disposing of the matter,
we allow and dispose of these appeals by directing the Chairman to take up the
interlocutory applications along with the main case, but to dispose of the
interlocutory applications first by passing orders in each interlocutory application
as soon as possible and thereafter to proceed with the hearing of the
-4-
main case. In the event the applications are allowed and fresh evidence is required
to be taken, the final opinion will have to be rendered only thereafter. We also
make it clear that the appellant before us will not be entitled to question the
decision of the Chairman on the interlocutory applications separately from the
main opinion, which may be given by him on the basis of which the final decision
will follow. This will be equally applicable to both the appellant as well as the
respondents.
Since the matter is pending for quite some time, we also request the
Chairman of the Bench to dispose of the pending matter and the interlocutory
applications as expeditiously as possible, but preferably within a period of six
months from the date of communication of this order. We also make it clear that
we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the interlocutory applications,
which the Chairman will be free to decide.
We also record the submissions made by Mr. Ahmadi that of the
pending 12 interlocutory applications, his client will only be pressing IAs 422 to
426 of 2007 and IA 35 of 2008 and not others.
-5-
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
There will be no order as to costs.
………………..J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
………………..J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
NEW DELHI;
September 25, 2008.