M.S. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR, AP LAND GRABBING (PROH) ACT, HYD AND 10 OTHERS
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-20. M.S. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR, AP LAND GRABBING (PROH) ACT, HYD AND...
Judgment text
I [ 3413 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO :37129 OF 2013 Between: M. Bharathi (died) by LRs 1. M. S. Ramakrishna Raiu, S/o. M. Satyanarayana Raju, Aged about 42 yea'ts, Occ Business resideht of Plot No. 330, Jala Vayu Vihar, Kukatpally' Hyderabad. 2. M. Satyanarayana Raju,, S/o. Late M. Narayana Raju. , Aged. about 76 years, reside'nt of Plot No. 330, Jala Vayu Vihar, Kukatpally' Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS ANO Act, Hyderabad, 1. The Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rep. by its Registrar. 2. M. N. B. Raju, S/o Sri Gandhi Raju, Occ Business,. Resident of Flat No' 501, - SuOflj fo*6rs Plot No. 124t12E, Baghyanagar Housing Society Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3. M. Navya Lakshmi, D/o. M.
Naga Bhadri Raju Resident of Juwalapalem, West Godavari District. Juwalapalem, West 4. M. Nitya Gandhi, Dio. M. Naga Bhadri Raju Resident of Godavari District. No 201 5. Pacchamatla Bheema Raiu, S/o. P. Surapa Raju, Flat Trend Set Park ' View Apartments, Road No. 3, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad. 6. P. Ranga Raju,, S/o. Pacchamatla Bheema Raju, Flat No'201, Trend Set Park View Alpartnients, Road No. 3, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad' 7. A. Krishnam Raju,, Sio. A. Gopa Raju Flat N. o 2Q1, Trend Set Park View Apartments, Rdad No. 3, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad. 8. Smt. A. Krishna Raju, Wo. A. Gopa Raju Flat No. 201' Trend Set Park View Apaftments, Road'No. 3, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad' v 9. The Commissioner, GHMC, Near Tankbund, Hyderabad. 10. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 11. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Chandra Vihar, Mozamzahi Market, Mozamzahi Market, Hyderabad.
(Respondents 5 to 1 1 are not necessary parties). ..... RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction 'l calling for the records relating to the or:der of the st respondent passed in LGC. No. 5l2OO4, daled 29. 01 . 2010 in so far dismissing the case against the respondents 2lo 4 and set aside the same. Gounsel for the Petitioners : SRI O. MANOHER REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 : - Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRI VUPPALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 't't : - The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.
37129 of 2013 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Loxmi Naroyana Alishetty) This Writ Petition is hled seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order, dated 2g. Ol. 2OlO, passed in L. G. C. No. 5 of 2004, on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court') and to set aside the said order insofar as dismissing the case against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. The succinct facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are as follows: 2. 1. One M. Bharathi, who is mother of petitioner No. 1 and wife of petitioner No. 2 herein, fited L. G. C. No. S of 2004 before the Special Court, wherein it was stated that she is the absolute owner of the agricultural land measuring 0-38 guntas in Sy. No. I10 and further to an extent of Ac. l- 30 % guntas in Sy. Nos. l15, 116, and 118, totaling to Acs.
2-28 guntas situated at Hydemagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the I WP. No. 37129 o12013 said land from one Golla Laxmaiah and others through a registered sale deed, dated 11. 02. 1998. 2. 2. It was further stated that in pursuance of the said sale deed, she was inducted into vacant physical possession of the said land by her vendor, and subsequently, her name was mutated in the revenue records under the Andhra pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, l97l and. she was also issued pattedar passbook for the said land. 2. 3. As the things stood thus, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein grabbed an extent of Ac. 0. 30. 5 guntas in Sy. No. ll0 and the said respondents and their henchmen illegalry and unauthorizedly raised a compound wall covering the said extent. Against the said acts, the original applicanrBharathi filed a complaint before Kukatpally Police Station and she also got issued a notice to respondent Nos.
5 I to 7 through her lawyer, calling upon them to deliver back possession of the said extent of land, but there was no response from them. 2. 4. It was further stated that respondent No. 2 herein grabbed an extent of 196 square yards of the application schedule property. . -. [ was further stated that upon search in the Sub_Registrar,s Office, she came to know that a registered gift deed was executed on _! WP. No. 37129 ot 2013 29. 03. 2006 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the said land and hence, the said respondents, who were unlawfully inducted into possession of the said property, were impleaded in the LGC and the applicant sought to declare the said respondents also as 'land grabbers' and to funher declare her as the owner of the application schedule property and for mesne profits. I 3. Before the Special Court, respondent No.
2 herein filed counter denying the allegations made in the LGC and inter alia stated that he has not encroached any of the original applicant's lands; that he has no land in and around Sy. No. I l0 and as such, he has no necessity to grab the applicant's land; and that the original applicant, under a mistaken impression, has wrongly sought relief against him. It was further stated that he was unaware of the contents of the MRO's report and he has not been served with any notice either by the MRO or his sub-ordinates prior to the survey since he had no land in the said Survey numbers. It was further stated that the original applicant herself stated that there is a road, as per the MRO's report and prayed to dismiss the LGC. 4. Before the Special Court, on behalf of the original applicant, her husband was examined as P. W-l and Exs. A-l to A-6 were WP. No. 37129 of 2013 marked. On behalf of the respondents, R. W_I was examined and no documents were marked. 5.
The Special Court, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, allowed the application in part holding the original applicant as the owner of the applicant schedule property and declared respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein as 'land grabbers' in respect of an extent of Ac0. 29 guntas. The Special Court, however, dismissed the LGC against the other respondents, i. e. , respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and g to 11. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court in L. G. C. No. 5 of 2004, insofar as not granting any relief against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, the present petition Writ is fited. 7 . Heard Sri S. V. Ramana, leamed counsel, representing Sri O. Manoherr Reddy, leamed counsel on record for the petitioners, Sri D. R. Rama Raju, Ieamed counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and leamed Govemment pleader for Revenue appearing for the oflicial respondents. perused the entire material available on record. 8.
Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the burden lies on respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to prove that they are not land grabbers, but the same was not discharged by them; that fu I T ) WP. No. 37129 of 2013 Special court erred in dismissing the LGC insofar as the unofficial respondents, i. e. , respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, on the ground that the claim against the said respondents was not proved; and that the reasons assigned by the Special Court therefor are illegal, arbitrxy and contrary to the provisions of the A. p. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act; and therefore, sought to set aside the impugned order insofar as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. 9. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the Special Court has categoricaily obserwed that the original applicant herself has no clarity as to whether there was road and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are occupying the alleged road.
He further contended that the Special Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the entire material placed before it and rendered the impugned order by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, which warrants no interference by this Court. 10. No representation on behalfofthe unofficial respondents. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration in this Writ Petition:- " 1. Wether respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein are land grabbers? WP. No. 37129 of 2013 2. Whether the impugned order of the Special Court insofar as dismissing the LGC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is liable to be set aside? Point No. l: 12. In the instant case, as narrated above, the original applicant claimed that respondent No. 2 grabbed an extent of 196 square yards of the application schedule property and a road exists.
In the same breath, the applicant stated that no road had been approved by the competent authority and that she was presuming the existence ofsuch an approved road. Furthermore, respondent No. 2, categorically denied occupying any land belonging to the original applicant. He specifically stated that he has been wrongly included as a parfy to the case, clarifuing that his father's name is 'Siva Rama Raju' and not 'Gandhi Raju', as averred b1, the original claimant in the LGC and thereby, he claimed that he is a different person. The original claimant did not rebut this assertion of respondent No. 5. 13. It is pertinent to note that the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted report, in which it is clearly mentioned that 1. 5 guntas of lantrnas encroached upon by respondent No. 2 herein as house site. : WP. No 37129 of 2Ot3 14. Insofar as respondent Nos.
3 and 4 are concerned, the case of the original claimant is that they are in possession of 196 square yards of land'by virtue of a Gift deed executed by one D. Sunitha and I. Padmaja, who are said to be close relatives of respondent No. 2. However, the Special Court in the impugned order observed that names of the said persons are not figured in the MRO,s report. Except making such a stray observation in its order, by solely relying upon the non-disclosure ofnames of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein in the MRO,s report, the Special Court did not underlake the exercise or delve into the issue as to (1) whether respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein are related to respondent No. 2, (2) as to how respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are in possession of the said land, when it is the specific case of the original applicant that they are unlawfully inducted into possession of the said land. 15.
Mere non-disclosure or non_mentioning of certain fact(s) in the report of MRO cannot be construed to the benefit of the alleged erring person. The Special Court was swayed away with the fact that the names of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not figured in the M\O's report, ignoring the specific mention in the report that respondent No. 2 encroached an extent of 1. 5 guntas of land and therefore, the observation of the Special Court is contrary to the I WP. Na. 37129 of 2013 report of the MRO and thus, the same is erroneous. When the applicant alteged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in unlawful possession of the land, it is for the said respondents to prove the contra, but, no such attempt was made by them. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration and re-adjudication. lssue No. 2:- 16. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion on issue No.
1, this Writ Petition is disposed of and the matter-is remanded to the District Court concerned, with a direction to re-examine, re-appreciate/re-determine and adjudicate the case afresh with regard to the claim of the petitioners herein and the rival title set up by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein in respect of 196 square yards of land, after giving an opportunity of hearing and adducing further evidence, if any, to both the parties, in the light of report of the MRO that respondent No. 2 herein has encroached land to an extent of 1. 5 guntas, and dispose of the case, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. / WP. No. 37129 ot 2013 fl. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. I "'i""S,ti'lSEi'"TS'EiR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTIO N OFFICER GHMC' Near Tankbund't{yderabad' 'o ,. ,n" commissioner, of Andhra Pradesh' co'"tnm6nt s""'"rJi'li1"i6u"] 2. The Princip't c e ns ch a nd ra ; ull. lg"-. uffifrtl"gfit+^mt*,te"gur s.
On" CC to SRI VUPI t*o CD CoPies ,or, \ ff BSK I I Ir HIGH COURT DATED:2011212024 l : e siA ,'{: \i o t > 0:t rrs z 20fi o \ ORDER * D e. s PAICB9O WP. No. 37129 of 2013 DISPSOING OF THE W. P WITHOUT COSTS. {+ q L *r 6cl-,i)
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.