State & Its Agencies Are Expected To Be Model Litigants, Must Review Existing Policies To Avoid Frivolous Litigation: AP High Court

Highlighting the detriment of excessive and needless State-sponsored litigation, a Justice Subba Reddy Satti in his order said:

“The State or its instrumentalities are expected to be a model litigant and shall maintain ethical standards in prosecuting the litigation, being a compulsive litigant. Of late, this Court has noticed that the State or its instrumentalities are creating litigation and compelling individuals to approach the Courts. The State-sponsored litigation not only burdens the private parties but also undermines the credibility of the State as a responsible litigant.”

"It is, therefore, high time that both the Central and the State governments undertake a comprehensive revision of their existing litigation policies to ensure that unwarranted litigation is reduced. This Court hopes that if the litigation policy is implemented, it will not only curb frivolous, vexatious and repetitive litigations, but also protects the rights of private citizens and uphold the integrity of the justice system," the court added. 

Background

The petitioner Valluru Siva Prasad had challenged order of District Collector & Magistrate, Guntur City-respondent 3 dated 29.10.2007, who had instructed The District Registrar (Registration & Stamps), Guntur-respondent 1, to refrain from registration of property transfers in Survey Nos. 508 and 509 of Vasavi Nagar, Guntur (suit schedule property), on the ground that they were Wakf properties according to a Gazette Notification dated 28.06.1962.

The petitioner asserted ownership over a portion (313.3 sq. yds in Survey No.508), originally part of Ac.2-00 purchased in 1946 by one Sri Ch. Suryanarayana, and contended that a prior suit filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board-Respondent 2 for recovery of this land and future profits was dismissed by the Civil Court which established that the concerned property was not Wakf property. This was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court.

The state wakf board, however, contended that the effect of the judgment of the Civil Court was restricted to the specific land in the suit and also did not invalidate the Gazette Notification, which remained unchallenged and in force. It submitted that the prohibition on registration was valid under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. Further, it was urged that since the petitioner did not approach the Wakf Tribunal to contest the property's status, the writ petition could be held not-maintainable.

Thus, the Court had to determine whether the proceedings were legally sustainable in light of the decree passed by the Civil Court. Additional issues involved the Court to determine whether the decision of the Civil Court would operate as res judicata, whether the petitioner had to approach the Wakf Tribunal, and consequently, if the writ petition was maintainable.

Findings:

The court noted that the Wakf Board was aware of the findings of the Civil Court whereby it was established that the suit schedule property could not be categorised as Wakf Property. In this regard, the Court further held,

“Having suffered a decree, whether it is appropriate, on the part of the Waqf Board, respondent No.2, or its officers to communicate to respondent No.3 to include Ac.2-00 cts in survey number 508 of Guntur in the list of prohibited properties, (S.No. 508 total Ac. 11-38 cts including Ac.2-00 cts), the answer should be an emphatic 'No'.”

Additionally, the Court held that the parties to the suit were bound by the decision of the Civil Court and hence state wakb board had to adhere to the same.

Thereafter, the Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments which collectively propounded that even an ex parte decree or a previous decision, even if it is wrong, would operate as res judicata.

It said, “…given the categorical findings in the civil litigation in O.S.No. 129 of 1967; A.S.No. 164 of 1973 and S.A.No. 224 of 1978, the communication made by respondent No.2 concerning Ac.2-00 cents out of Ac.11-38 cents in S.No. 508 of Guntur, is hit by the principle of 'Res Judicata', and hence the communication in respect of Ac.2-00 cts in S.No. 508 of Guntur, is liable to be set aside.”

The court further said that Section 6 Waqf Act, states that parties can approach the tribunal vis-a-vis a dispute regarding property, and Section 7 prescribes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue. But in Section 7(5), an exception is carved out, stating that once Civil Court adjudicates the dispute, and it becomes final, relegating petitioner to Tribunal is a futile exercise as Tribunal thereafter lacks jurisdiction.

The court also observed that since the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 300-A (right to property) was infringed, he was justified in filing a plea It said:

“In the case at hand, the petitioner purchased the plot under a registered document dated 07.02.2011. Respondent No.2, having suffered a decree in the civil proceedings, as seen from the material available on record, never exercised the right over the property till sending the communication to respondent No.3. The communication to include the land, in question, in the prohibited list under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, would create an unwarranted litigation and results in infringement of the right of the petitioner under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable.”

It also held that by no stretch of imagination could state wakf board, being the executive, be allowed to overturn the civil court's judgment. “Thus, in the guise of protecting the properties, despite the judgment of the Civil Court, to overreach the judgment, the said communication, impugned in the writ petition, was made. Respondent No.2, the Waqf Board, cannot act as an appellate court and communicate the list and create another round of litigation. Respondent No.2 should have kept in mind the National/State litigation policy and its objectives before creating unwarranted litigation,” it said.

It thus allowed the plea. 

Case Title: VALLURU SIVA PRASAD v. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRATION STAMPS GUNTUR

Click Here To Read/Download Order