Mohd. Hasanuddin Khan and others vs State of A.P., Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others

M.S. Liberhan, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.

In the writ petition, the appellants have challenged the order dated 3-7-1998 of the 4th respondent whereunder the Collector, Rangareddy District, had directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal, -5th respondent to implement the orders of the High Court in WP No.5394 of 1992, 12870 and 15320 of 1991 and report compliance. Copies of the orders were sent along with the said order.

The only prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:

"Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the impugned order of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District (4th respondent) in his proceedings Lr. No.D3/5363/88 dated 3-7-1998 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, null and void and to issue such other order or orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

The appellants - writ petitioners have also sought for interim suspension of the said order during the pendency of the writ petition.

The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the writ petitioners were not parties to the proceedings and, therefore, no direction can be issued to the authorities not to implement the judgments of this Court referred to above much less quash the order of the Collector directing the MRO to implement the orders of the High Court. The learned single Judge also found that the third parties to the above proceedings which ended in the Supreme Court after a prolonged litigation, cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter stating that they are not bound by the judgments, and it is wholly impermissible for a third party to say not to implement the judgments.

The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the respondents are not implementing the judgments of this Court, but are only delivering possession to the party respondents under the garb of the orders of this Court. Since there was no direction issued by this Court to deliver possession to the parties, the action of the authorities is illegal and, therefore, they be restrained from delivering the possession.

We find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Concedingly, the appellants - writ petitioners herein are third parties to the earlier litigation i.e., WP No.5394 of 1992, wherein the learned single Judge issued the following directions:

"1. The impugned order dated 15-2-1991 passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Re. No.Sep.3/468/82 is set aside;

The respondents 4 to 6 and the other heirs of the displaced persons, Valiram, shall not be entitled to claim any rights in the lands of Serinalagandla or compensation thereof;

The heirs of Valiram including respondents 4 to 6 are held to be valid allottees consequent to the proceedings of the custodian of Evacuee Properties and the Secretary to Commissioner for Survey, Settlement and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad in his file No.SEP/3/468/ 82 dated 27-9-1988;

The consequent purchase of the petitioners which is clothed with permission in that regard is perfectly valid and legal;

The petitioners had been in actual and physical possession of the lands purchased by them comprised of Survey Nos.327, 328 and 329 (part) totally admeasuring Ac.36.03 guntas situated at Athwelli village of Medchal Mandal of Ranga Reddy district and that possession shall not be disturbed;

The 3rd respondent is directed to mutate the names of the petitioners for the respective lands purchased by .them mentioned above in the relevant columns revenue records pertaining to ownership and possession."

The said order of the teamed single Judge was impugned in Writ Appeal No.195 of 1994 and by a common judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.37, 43 and 195 of 1994, a Division Bench of this Court, has categorically observed that any finding of fact recorded by the learned single Judge except insofar as such admissions and pleadings which are referred to in the impugned Judgment, shall not be binding upon the parties much less on the third parties. The Division Bench also observed that the learned single Judge gave liberty to the parties to institute such civil proceedings as are available to them under law and in that view of the matter the appeals were dismissed. However, the Division Bench gave liberty to the parties to raise any legal issue, including the issue of maintainability, if so advised, in any of the suits that may be instituted by the parties. On further appeal to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the orders of this Court were confirmed. The learned single Judge has given a categorical finding that the respondents herein are in actual physical possession of the lands and gave a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to mutate the lands in favour of the respondents in the relevant revenue records. Assuming, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that the respondents - authorities are delivering possession to the party respondents, the appellants have got no right to challenge the same in these writ proceedings inasmuch as this Court gave a categorical finding that the party - respondents are in possession of the lands and inasmuch the respondents-authorities are only complying with the orders and findings of this Court and mutating the lands which again does not confer title on any party. The parties will be at liberty to pursue their remedy in the civil Court; consequently, we cannot interfere in this writ appeal. We find no force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants being third parties to the earlier proceedings, they are not bound by the judgment of this Court; consequently, the respondents-authorities cannot deliver possession as the appellants are in possession of the properties. The question whether the appellants are in possession of the properties or not cannot be determined in the present proceedings, especially when the appellants themselves state that the respondents-authorities are in possession of the properties and are delivering possession to the party-respondents and as such they be restrained from delivering possession. We fail to comprehend what is the consequence of any such order if obtained by them in a parallel writ proceedings with respect to the same subject-matter when their contention in the present writ proceedings is based on the premise that the respondent-State authorities are delivering possession to the party respondents which is contrary to their own version that they are in possession of the properties. Possession can be delivered by the State authorities if they are in possession. In view of the stand taken by the appellants, it will be very difficult to assume that they are in possession of the properties who are third parties to the earlier litigation. It is made clear that if any order is existing inter se between the parties regarding possession, they are at liberty to seek appropriate relief in those proceedings. But, no relief can be granted to them in the present proceedings. Even otherwise also, it is well established principle that multiplicity of proceedings cannot be permitted. Be that as it is, the appellants being only third parties to the earlier litigation and the authorities are only implementing the orders of this Court passed in the earlier litigation in respect of the parties in those proceedings, no writ can be issued directing the respondents - State authorities not to implement the Judgment of this Court which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. We find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.