{"id":245984,"date":"1999-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999"},"modified":"2017-10-06T15:22:22","modified_gmt":"2017-10-06T09:52:22","slug":"east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999","title":{"rendered":"East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: M Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: M.J.Rao, N.Santosh Hegde<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nEAST CITY DEFENCE PERSONNEL WELFARE ASSOCIATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF A.P.  AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/07\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nM.J.Rao, N.Santosh Hegde\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.\n<\/p>\n
      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
      This appeal has been preferred by the appellant –<\/p>\n
      association  –  which  consists of  defence  personnel\n<\/p>\n
-against<\/p>\n
      the  judgment  of\t the Division Bench  of\t the  Andhra
\nPradesh<\/p>\n
      High Court in W.A.No.1251\/97 dated 2.3.98 whereby the<\/p>\n
      judgment\t of  the  learned   Single  Judge  in\tW.P.
\nNO.6468\/97<\/p>\n
      dated  29.7.97  was  affirmed.  In  this\tappeal,\t the
\nappellant –\n<\/p>\n
      association  is  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of\t the
\nlearned<\/p>\n
      Single  Judge as affirmed by the division Bench to the
\nextent<\/p>\n
      that the court enabled 5th respondent ( Andhra Pradesh<\/p>\n
      Bhoodan Board) to act as receiver in regard to the<\/p>\n
      properties which are the subject matter of the writ<\/p>\n
      petition.\n<\/p>\n
      For the purpose of understanding the dispute in this<\/p>\n
      appeal,  it  is  necessary  to refer  briefly  to\t the
\nvarious<\/p>\n
      proceedings taken out by the parties earlier namely,<\/p>\n
      O.S.238\/89,  pending before the IInd Additional Judge,
\nCity<\/p>\n
      Civil Court, Hyderabad, judgment dated 3.12.92 of the<\/p>\n
      learned Single Judge of the High Court of Hyderabad in<\/p>\n
      W.P.9211\/90,  judgment of another learned Single Judge
\nof the<\/p>\n
      High   Court  dated  29.1.97   in\t W.P.8280\/95,\tW.P.
\n22745\/94 which<\/p>\n
      is  said\tto be pending in the High Court and  finally
\nthe<\/p>\n
      judgment dated 29.7.97 in W.P.6468\/97 out of which the
\nwrit<\/p>\n
      appeal which is the subject matter of this appeal has<\/p>\n
      arisen.\n<\/p>\n
      We shall refer to the above proceedings to the extent<\/p>\n
      necessary\t to highlight the limited issue that  arises
\nin this<\/p>\n
      appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
      A landlord named Chatur Girijee of Rangapur village<\/p>\n
      donated  his lands to the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna
\nBoard<\/p>\n
      on  8.2.52.   The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan\tYagna  Board
\nentered<\/p>\n
      into an agreement with Narne Ranga Rao and others of<\/p>\n
      Gunrock Enclave Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,<\/p>\n
      Secundrabad  under  which the Board was to  allot\t 200
\nacres at<\/p>\n
      Rangapur village to the above said persons in exchange
\nto<\/p>\n
      200  acres to be provided by the said Ranga Rao to the
\nBoard.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the ground that the said Ranga Rao had given\tonly
\n42<\/span><\/p>\n
      acres  32\t guntas in Edira village to the\t Board,\t the
\nBoard<\/p>\n
      allotted\tonly  42 acres 32 guntas to the\t said  Ranga
\nRao.\n<\/p>\n
      Ranga  Rao  and others took conveyance of the said  42
\nacres 32<\/p>\n
      guntas   and  sought  specific   performance  of\t the
\nagreement<\/p>\n
      seeking  the  sale  of  the  remaining  158  acres  in
\nRangapur<\/p>\n
      village  and for that purpose filed a suit  O.S.238\/89
\nin the<\/p>\n
      Court of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court,<\/p>\n
      Hyderabad.   It  appears that the said Court has\talso
\npassed<\/p>\n
      interim  orders.\tThe suit is still pending.  However,
\nthe 42<\/p>\n
      acres  and  32  guntas referred to above\tis  not\t the
\nsubject of<\/p>\n
      any dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n
      It is the grievance of the Board that the said Ranga<\/p>\n
      Rao  and\tthe Society negotiated directly\t with  other
\nallottees<\/p>\n
      of Bhoodan Land and purchased land in violation of the<\/p>\n
      provisions of the A.P.  Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965.
\nIt is<\/p>\n
      this  land that is subject matter of the writ petition
\nout of<\/p>\n
      which this appeal arises.<\/p>\n
      A show cause notice dated 16.1.90 was issued by the<\/p>\n
      Mandal  Revenue  Officer, Bibinagar to the said  Ranga
\nRao who<\/p>\n
      is the President of the Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd and to
\nthe<\/p>\n
      Gunrock Enclave Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.<\/p>\n
      Secundrabad,  to\tshow cause why action should not  be
\ntaken<\/p>\n
      under  the  A.P.\t Bhoodan and Gramdan Act,  1965\t for
\nalleged<\/p>\n
      violation\t of  the  provisions of the Act.   The\tsaid
\nnotice was<\/p>\n
      received\tand a reply was sent on 27.1.90.  No  orders
\nwere<\/p>\n
      passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the reply, but
\na<\/p>\n
      further  notice  was issued by him on 13.6.90  on\t the
\nsame<\/p>\n
      allegations as in the earlier notice.  The validity of
\nthe<\/p>\n
      notice  dated  13.6.90 was questioned by\tthe  Gunrock
\nEnclave<\/p>\n
      Cooperative  Housing  Society Ltd, Narne Estates\tPvt.
\nLtd and<\/p>\n
      one N.  Gopal Naidu in W.P.9211\/90.  After hearing the<\/p>\n
      respective parties, the learned Judge issued certain<\/p>\n
      directions  that the Bhoodan Board could issue  notice
\nto the<\/p>\n
      affected\tparties\t including the writ petitioners,  in
\nrespect<\/p>\n
      of  the subject matter of the Mandal Revenue Officer’s
\nnotice<\/p>\n
      dated  13.6.90 and afford them an opportunity of being
\nheard<\/p>\n
      and decide the dispute between the parties, namely the<\/p>\n
      dispute  which  was  raised in the show  cause  notice
\nissued by<\/p>\n
      the Mandal Revenue Officer.  This direction was issued
\nin<\/p>\n
      view  of\tan  earlier ruling of the High\tCourt  dated
\n16.12.76<\/p>\n
      in W.P.4503\/75 which had held that after the enactment
\nof<\/p>\n
      the A.P.\tBhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965, the revenue<\/p>\n
      authorities  had no power to deal with any land  which
\nwas<\/p>\n
      covered  by  the\tAct and that it was only  the  Board
\nwhich<\/p>\n
      could  deal  with the disputes arising under the\tAct.
\nThe<\/p>\n
      learned  Single  Judge directed that within one  month
\nfrom the<\/p>\n
      date  of\tthe receipt of the copy of the\tjudgment  in
\nwrit<\/p>\n
      petition,\t the  Revenue  Officer should  transfer\t the
\npapers<\/p>\n
      relating to the show cause notice to the Bhoodan Board
\nand<\/p>\n
      that  within  four months thereafter, the\t said  Board
\nshould<\/p>\n
      issue  a notice to the writ petitioners and dispose of
\nthe<\/p>\n
      proceedings   in\t accordance   with  the\t  provisions
\ncontained in<\/p>\n
      the Act and the rules framed thereunder.\tThe learned<\/p>\n
      Single  Judge of the High Court observed that  insofar
\nas the<\/p>\n
      suit No.OS.  238\/89 was concerned, the same could be<\/p>\n
      adjudicated on its own merits without reference to any<\/p>\n
      observations  in the writ petition.  The learned Judge
\nalso<\/p>\n
      stated that any adjudication to be made by the Bhoodan<\/p>\n
      Board,  would  not come in the way of the decision  in
\nthe said<\/p>\n
      suit,  inasmuch the said suit was instituted prior  to
\nthe<\/p>\n
      issuance of the first show cause notice dated 16.1.90.
\nThe<\/p>\n
      learned Judge also stated that whatever interim orders
\nwere<\/p>\n
      passed  in  the  suit, they would\t continue  till\t the
\ndisposal of<\/p>\n
      the said suit, unless varied or annulled in accordance
\nwith<\/p>\n
      law.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter, the Bhoodan Board nominated one Shri<\/p>\n
      Kodanda  Ram  Reddy  to  conduct\tan  enquiry.   After
\nhearing<\/p>\n
      objections  of  the parties, he submitted a report  on
\n16.8.93<\/p>\n
      to  the Board.  The Board approved the report in\ttoto
\non<\/p>\n
      23.8.93 and sent it to the Mandal Revenue Officer for<\/p>\n
      necessary action.\t It appears that as per the decision
\nof the<\/p>\n
      Board,  the  lands  which were in the  name  of  Narne
\nEstates<\/p>\n
      Pvt.  Ltd.  in Survey Nos.  22 to 27, 29 to 41, 43, 45
\nto 60,<\/p>\n
      63  to 68, 70 to 74, 79, 80 and 85 of Rangapur village
\nwere<\/p>\n
      directed\tto be restored to the Board.  It was  stated
\nthat<\/p>\n
      individual notices were issued on 13.10.93 to various<\/p>\n
      assignees\t of  the  Bhoodan Board who had\t sold  their
\nlands to<\/p>\n
      Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd and replies were received from
\n25<\/span><\/p>\n
      assignees.  The Bhoodan Board found the replies<\/p>\n
      ‘unsatisfactory’.\t  A  copy of the proceedings of\t the
\nBoard has<\/p>\n
      not  been placed before this Court and it is not clear
\nwhat<\/p>\n
      reasons  were  given  by\tthe Board to  say  that\t the
\nreplies of<\/p>\n
      the assignees were unsatisfactory.  The Bhoodan Board<\/p>\n
      terminated  the  pattas granted to the said  assignees
\nand<\/p>\n
      intimated the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer and<\/p>\n
      requested\t him  to take action to restore the land  to
\nthe<\/p>\n
      Board  and make proposals for fresh assignments of the
\nland<\/p>\n
      to  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  The  Board
\nissued a<\/p>\n
      letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer on 14.12.1993<\/p>\n
      requesting him to take action to restore the lands to<\/p>\n
      Bhoodan  Board for fresh assignments to the  Scheduled
\nCastes<\/p>\n
      and Scheduled Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
      It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the<\/p>\n
      Government   itself   that   Mandal  Revenue   Officer
\nthereafter<\/p>\n
      served  a\t show  cause  notice on\t the  assignees\t and
\ncancelled<\/p>\n
      the  allotments of the Bhoodan lands vide\t proceedings
\nB\/92-94<\/p>\n
      dated  25.5.94 and that aggrieved by the orders of the
\nMandal<\/p>\n
      Revenue  Officer, Shri Miralam Kistaiah and 28  others
\nwho<\/p>\n
      were  the assignees\/allottees\/occupants approached the
\nHigh<\/p>\n
      Court  in W.P.No.22745\/94 and obtained orders of\tstay
\nin<\/p>\n
      W.P.M.P.no.28335\/94.  It is stated that the said writ<\/p>\n
      petition is still pending in the High Court.<\/p>\n
      It appears that the All India Scheduled Castes Rights<\/p>\n
      Protection  Society  and Ors.  filed a  Writ  Petition
\nNo.8280\/95<\/p>\n
      stating  that  in spite of the directions of the\tHigh
\nCourt in<\/p>\n
      W.P.NO.9211\/90  dated  3.12.92 referred to earlier  no
\naction<\/p>\n
      was  initiated  by the Bhoodan Board and others.\t The
\nsaid writ<\/p>\n
      petition was disposed of on 29.1.97 directing the<\/p>\n
      respondents therein to expedite the proceedings.<\/p>\n
      We now come to the latest order of the Mandal Revenue<\/p>\n
      Officer dated 8.3.97 which was impugned in W.P.6468\/97
\nfiled<\/p>\n
      by  the defence employees who are members of the\tEast
\nCity<\/p>\n
      Defence  Personnel  Welfare   Association\t (registered
\nNo.387\/91)<\/p>\n
      represented  by P.R.  Krishna Rao.  This writ petition
\nwas<\/p>\n
      taken up for consideration alongwith W.P.6497\/97 filed
\nby<\/p>\n
      the  East\t City Defence Personnel Welfare\t Association
\nand W.P.\n<\/p>\n
      4707\/97 filed by the Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd.<\/p>\n
      The impugned order dated 8.3.97 of the Mandal Revenue<\/p>\n
      Officer states that the said Officer has been directed
\nby<\/p>\n
      the  Collector,  Nalgonda\t to take action as  per\t the
\njudgment<\/p>\n
      of the High Court in W.P.8280\/95 dated 29.1.97 and as<\/p>\n
      requested by the Bhoodan Board in their letter dated<\/p>\n
      31.12.93.\t  The officer then says cryptically that “in
\nview<\/p>\n
      of  the above facts I do hereby take the possession of
\nthe<\/p>\n
      Bhoodan  lands in Survey Nos.  22 to 27, 29 to 41, 43,
\n45 to<\/p>\n
      60,  63  to 68, 70 to 74, 79, 80 and 85 measuring\t 507
\nacres<\/p>\n
      and  34  1\/2  guntas as per the Annexure\tsituated  at
\nRangapoor<\/p>\n
      village of Bibinagar mandal alongwith the following<\/p>\n
      structures:\n<\/p>\n
      1.  Administrative Building<\/p>\n
      2.  Guest House<\/p>\n
      3.  Shopping Complex 4.  Godown<\/p>\n
      5.  Water Tanks (2)<\/p>\n
      6.  Other Buildings (3)<\/p>\n
      and excluding 42 acres and 32 guntas covered in Survey
\nNos.\n<\/p>\n
      32,  33,\t54, 69, 71 and 72.” It will be noticed\tthat
\nthis<\/p>\n
      extent  is  quite large while the land covered by\t the
\nsuit OS<\/p>\n
      238\/89  was  158\tacres.\t The  appellants  –  defence
\npersonnel<\/p>\n
      contended in the writ petition that the land in their<\/p>\n
      possession was extensive and there were buildings and<\/p>\n
      structures thereon and that the officer could not have
\ntaken<\/p>\n
      and  did not , in fact, take physical possession.\t  He
\nhad also<\/p>\n
      no power under law to pass such an order.<\/p>\n
      The learned Single Judge in his judgment in writ<\/p>\n
      petition\tNo.6468\/97  and batch dated 29.7.97 (out  of
\nwhich<\/p>\n
      this  appeal  has\t ultimately arisen)  held  that\t the
\nMandal<\/p>\n
      Revenue  Officer\thad no power to pass the above\tsaid
\norder<\/p>\n
      dated  8.3.97  under any statute and that even  if  it
\ncould be<\/p>\n
      said  that  he  had exercised some  powers  under\t the
\nAndhra<\/p>\n
      Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, he had violated the<\/p>\n
      principles  of  natural  justice as he had  not  given
\nnotice to<\/p>\n
      the  defence personnel and others and that his  action
\nwas<\/p>\n
      wholly arbitrary.\t Further, the officer could not have
\ntaken<\/p>\n
      physical possession of Ac 500 and buildings which were
\nin<\/p>\n
      the  possession of the various writ petitioners, by  a
\nsingle<\/p>\n
      stroke  of his pen and, therefore, it was only a paper
\norder<\/p>\n
      and  no  physical\t delivery  was taken  by  him.\t The
\nlearned<\/p>\n
      Judge  further  clarified that neither in\t W.P.9211\/90
\nand in<\/p>\n
      W.P.8280\/95  nor in the writ petitions before him, any
\nrights<\/p>\n
      of  title\t between any of the parties were decided  or
\nwere<\/p>\n
      being  decided.  It would be for the Bhoodan Board  or
\nfor the<\/p>\n
      aggrieved parties to approach the Civil Court for<\/p>\n
      adjudication  of their disputes of title.\t But  having
\nsaid so,<\/p>\n
      the  learned  Judge proceeded further to\tappoint\t the
\nBhoodan<\/p>\n
      Board as Receiver pending initiation of any such<\/p>\n
      proceedings by the Board or by the other parties.<\/p>\n
      To the extent that the learned Judge appointed the<\/p>\n
      Bhoodan  Board as receiver, the defence personnel\t who
\nwere<\/p>\n
      the writ petitioners were aggrieved and they filed the
\nwrit<\/p>\n
      Appeal.\tNo appeal was filed by the Bhoodan Board  or
\nthe<\/p>\n
      Mandal Revenue Officer.  The said writ appeal filed by
\nthe<\/p>\n
      appellant\t  association\twas,  as   already   stated,
\ndismissed.  It<\/p>\n
      is  against this order that this appeal has been filed
\nby the<\/p>\n
      said association.\n<\/p>\n
      We have heard the learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
      appellant\t  Shri\tR.   Sundaravardan   and   Shri\t  A.
\nRaghuveer,<\/p>\n
      learned  senior counsel for the respondents  alongwith
\nShri K.\n<\/p>\n
      Ram  Kumar, Ms.  Asha G.\tNair, Shri Santhynarayan and
\nShri<\/p>\n
      S.V.  Deshpande and others.<\/p>\n
      After perusing the various proceedings and the counter<\/p>\n
      affidavit\t filed before this Court, we are of the view
\nthat<\/p>\n
      there  was  no justification for the learned Judge  to
\nappoint<\/p>\n
      a\t receiver,  much less the Bhoodan Board as  receiver
\nwhile<\/p>\n
      at the same time holding that no question of title has
\nbeen<\/p>\n
      or   was\tbeing  decided.\t  The\tcase  of  the\twrit
\npetitioners is<\/p>\n
      that  the\t order of the Mandal Revenue  Officer  dated
\n8.3.97<\/p>\n
      whereby  he recorded that he has taken the  possession
\nof 507<\/p>\n
      acres and 34 1\/2 guntas, is a farce and no physical<\/p>\n
      possession had, in fact, been taken or could have been<\/p>\n
      taken.   This  plea has been accepted by\tthe  learned
\nSingle<\/p>\n
      Judge.   The  learned  Judge has also  said  that\t the
\nparties or<\/p>\n
      the  Board  can  file a suit to  prove  title.   These
\nfindings<\/p>\n
      and observations have become final since neither Board
\nnor<\/p>\n
      the Mandal Revenue Officer have filed any writ appeal.
\nIf<\/p>\n
      the  Mandal  Revenue  Officer has not  taken  physical
\npossession<\/p>\n
      it  is obvious that the possession is, in fact, and in
\nlaw<\/p>\n
      with the various writ petitioners.<\/p>\n
      If the physical possession of this land has remained<\/p>\n
      with  the\t various writ petitioners, as found  by\t the
\nlearned<\/p>\n
      Single  Judge, such possession, in our opinion,  could
\nnot<\/p>\n
      have been ordinarily interfered with by the Court by<\/p>\n
      appointing  a receiver and that too without going into
\nany<\/p>\n
      question\t of   prima  facie   title  or\tbalance\t  of
\nconvenience.  The<\/p>\n
      question\tof  title  has been left  open,\t as  already
\nstated.\t We<\/p>\n
      do  not,\ttherefore,  find any justification  for\t the
\nlearned<\/p>\n
      Single  Judge  to appoint a Receiver and that too\t the
\nrival<\/p>\n
      party,  the  Bhoodan  Board as receiver,\tpending\t the
\ninitiation<\/p>\n
      of proceedings in the Civil Court by the parties.<\/p>\n
      The learned Single Judge has also directed status quo<\/p>\n
      to  be maintained by the parties.\t It is obvious\tthat
\nas and<\/p>\n
      when  the parties approach the Civil Court it will  be
\nopen to<\/p>\n
      that  Court  to pass appropriate interlocutory  orders
\nwhich it<\/p>\n
      may  deem\t fit  in the circumstances of  the  case  by
\ntaking into<\/p>\n
      consideration  all  facts which may be brought to\t its
\nnotice<\/p>\n
      and  without  being hindered by the status  quo  order
\npassed by<\/p>\n
      the  learned  Single  Judge.  Further,  if  any  other
\norders are<\/p>\n
      necessary\t in  the pending civil suit, in relation  to
\nits<\/p>\n
      subject  matter, the parties thereto can approach that
\ncourt<\/p>\n
      also.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, the direction of the learned Single<\/p>\n
      Judge in his judgment dated 29.7.97 as affirmed in the
\nwrit<\/p>\n
      appeal,  in  so  far  as\t the  learned  Single  Judge
\nappointed the<\/p>\n
      Bhoodan  Board as receiver is set aside.\tThe order in
\nthe<\/p>\n
      writ  appeal is also set aside to that extent.  It  is
\nopen<\/p>\n
      to  the  Board  or  to   the  other  parties  to\ttake
\nappropriate<\/p>\n
      proceedings in a Civil Court in regard to the title to
\nthe<\/p>\n
      property\twhich is subject matter of the notice and of
\nthe<\/p>\n
      writ petition and seek appropriate interim orders.  It
\nwill<\/p>\n
      then  be\tfor  the Civil Court to\t pass  such  interim
\norders as<\/p>\n
      it  may deem fit in the circumstances of the case\t and
\nthe<\/p>\n
      status quo order passed by the learned Single Judge in
\nthe<\/p>\n
      writ  petition  will not come in the way of the  Civil
\nCourt<\/p>\n
      passing  appropriate  orders.  It is also open to\t the
\nparties<\/p>\n
      to  obtain  any further orders in O.S.238\/89,  pending
\nbefore<\/p>\n
      the   IInd  Additional  Judge,   City   Civil   Court,
\nHyderabad, in<\/p>\n
      relation to the land covered by that suit.<\/p>\n
      We, accordingly allow this appeal and dispose of the<\/p>\n
      same  in\tthe  light of the  directions  given  above.
\nThere will<\/p>\n
      be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
      I.A.No.1\/98<\/p>\n
      I.A.No.1\/98 is filed for impleadment by the writ<\/p>\n
      petitioners  in the writ petition as party respondents
\nin<\/p>\n
      this  appeal.   In view of the orders passed by us  in
\nthe main<\/p>\n
      appeal  we  do  not  think   it  necessary  to  permit
\nimpleadment of<\/p>\n
      these petitioners in the present proceedings.  It will
\nbe<\/p>\n
      open  to\tthem to take appropriate steps as  they\t may
\ndeem fit<\/p>\n
      in  accordance  with  law.   I.A.1\/98  is\t accordingly
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      …………….CJI.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 Author: M Rao Bench: M.J.Rao, N.Santosh Hegde PETITIONER: EAST CITY DEFENCE PERSONNEL WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/1999 BENCH: M.J.Rao, N.Santosh Hegde JUDGMENT: M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted. This appeal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nEast City Defence Personnel ... vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"East City Defence Personnel ... vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-06T09:52:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T09:52:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2658,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\",\"name\":\"East City Defence Personnel ... vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T09:52:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"East City Defence Personnel ... vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"East City Defence Personnel ... vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-06T09:52:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999","datePublished":"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T09:52:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999"},"wordCount":2658,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999","name":"East City Defence Personnel ... vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T09:52:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/east-city-defence-personnel-vs-state-of-a-p-and-ors-on-27-july-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"East City Defence Personnel … vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245984","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}