Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mohd. Ayub vs Mohd. Abdul Lateef Khan And Anr. on 19 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)ALD190, 2006(4)ALT647
ORDER S. Ananda Reddy, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent in the E.P. No. 5 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1115 of 2001, aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Tribunal, which ordered issuance of warrant for delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property in accordance with the order passed in the main O.P.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the execution petition is not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to execute the order passed by the Special Tribunal under Order XXI CPC; as the procedure for giving effect to the orders of the Special Tribunal are provided under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the petitioner, the Special Tribunal shall communicate its order to the parties as well as to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, and if an order is passed in favour of the petitioner, who sought for recovery of possession by eviction of the respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer is obligated to give effect to the said order, as is contemplated under Rule 15 of the Rules, and therefore, in view of the specific provision provided under the Rules, the execution petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 35 CPC is not maintainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner, though such an objection is raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal over-ruled the same and ordered for issuance of warrant for effecting delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed questioning the same.
3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, sought to sustain the impugned order. It is contended by the learned Counsel that there is no express bar or prohibition from filing execution petition before the Special Tribunal, which passed the order in favour of the petitioner, who filed the petition under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Pro) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking recovery of possession. It is contended by the learned Counsel that in terms of Section 7A of the Act, the provisions of CPC are applicable to the extent required for considering the application filed under Section 7A. Further as per Section 9, the Special Court has got all the powers of a Civil Court and the Court of Sessions. The learned Counsel also referred to Rule 13 of the Rules where there is a reference as to the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the proceedings before the Special Court, where it was provided that the Special Court shall have the same powers as are vested in the civil Court under the CPC when trying an application in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; compelling the production of documents and material objects; issuing Commission for examination of witnesses; and every enquiry or investigation by the Court shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that in the light of the absence of any express bar prohibiting the respondent from filing the execution petition, the order passed by the Court is proper and just. Therefore, there is no merit warranting interference by this Court with the impugned order.
4. Heard both the learned Counsel and considered the material on record.
5. The dispute in the present revision petition is whether the Special Court, which passed an order or decree in favour of the petitioner, who filed an application under Section 7A is entitled to execute the said order or decree.
6. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of the Act, a Special Court was constituted for dealing with the cases, where it was alleged by one party against the other that the lands belongs to the party complained of grabbed or occupied by the other. In such circumstances, the Special Court constituted under the Act has been given powers to deal with and adjudicate upon the dispute and pass appropriate orders, and if the facts of grabbing by the respondent is found, an order for eviction of the said land grabber and for restoration of the possession to the applicant/petitioner. Admittedly, in the present case there is an order passed in favour of the respondents for effecting delivery of possession treating the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, who is the respondent in the O.P. as grabber of the land in question. The issue relates to the mode of execution of the said order. Specific procedure is contemplated under the Rules. Rule 15 specifically provides that the Court or the Tribunal shall communicate its final decisions or order to the effected parties and also to the Revenue Divisional Officer to give effect to the decision of the Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall on receipt of the order of the Court, issue or arrange to issue a direction deputing any officer not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector to take possession from the possessor of the grabbed land on behalf of the Court and deliver possession of the land to the person ordered by the Court. Therefore, as there is a specific procedure provided under the Rules, there was no need for the person in whose favour an order was passed to approach any authority for implementation of the said order. In the light of the said specific procedure provided under the Rules, no execution petition is expected to be filed, more so before the Tribunal, which passed the order. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or Special Court to execute its order as to the delivery of possession is also clear from the provisions of the Sub-rule (10) of Rule 15 itself, where the Tribunal was given power to execute its order granting compensation and costs of such delivery. If any order is passed with reference to those aspects under the said provisions with reference to the above said items, the execution is in accordance with the CPC before the Tribunal itself. Therefore, it is clear that as far as the delivery of possession is concerned, when once an order is passed by the Tribunal or Special Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer is obligated to give effect of the said order by implementing the same, and therefore, there was no need to file any execution petition. Under the above circumstances, the present E.P., and the order passed by the Special Tribunal is clearly without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly set aside.
7. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.