IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19772 of 2008 Between: 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Dy.Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipal Cirlce, Ranga Reddy district. 2 Additional Commissioner (Admn & Legal), of Greater Hyderabd Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Mrs. K.Easther vajra Kumari, W/o. Raja Rao, R/o. H.No.1-7-1022/19/A, Suzana Nilayam, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to LGC No.36/05 on the ﬁle of Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad and quash the judgment dated 26.12.2007 made in LGC NO.36 of 2005 by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner:R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRT.N.MRANGA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the decision rendered by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, in L.G.C.No.36 of 2005, dated 26-12-2007. The respondent herein is the applicant in L.G.C.No.36 of 2005 which was ﬁled before the Special Court seeking to declare her as owner of plot No.27 in S.No.844/1 demarcated as S.No.844/23 admeasuring 266 sq.yards situated at Malkajgiri Village, R.R.District. The applicant purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 28-04-1987 for a valuable consideration from Wesley High School and Junior College Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad, and she could not raise any construction as there was delay in getting the permission for construction. The sanction ﬁled by the applicant for grant of permission was kept pending with the authorities without returning the said sanction with any objection. In the year 1990, there was a dispute between Wesley Girls High School and Junior College, Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad and Annapurna Society regarding the boundaries and the parties approached this Court in W.P.Nos.5128 and 5254 of 1990 and this Court disposed of the said writ petitions on 15-06-1990 directing the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to survey Sy.No.844/23 and Sy.No.844/16 as per the G.Os issued and submit the survey report along with combined sketch as per the layouts. The HUDA authorities also prepared the revised layout for Sy.No.844/23 by maintaining the mandatory open spaces and roads as per earlier approved layout. All the plots were of the same size, area and position as they were in the earlier approved layout except plot Nos.11, 12, 15, 28, 29, 30 and 31 which are on the eastern boundary and were eﬀected as per survey report. She made an application for grant of permission to construct a residential house and also paid the requisite fee towards the building permission and the HUDA authorities prepared the ﬁnal layout after receiving the required amounts from Wesley Girls High School and Junior College, Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad. After receipt of the report from the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records as per the directions of this Court in the writ petitions mentioned above, the same was sent to the ﬁrst respondent. In spite of the directions of this Court and also the directions of HUDA dated 23-06-2004, the ﬁrst respondent intentionally grabbed the land of the applicant in the month of November, 2004 and thus the ﬁrst respondent/ﬁrst petitioner herein also helped the encroachers and unauthorized parties without consent of the applicant. The ﬁrst petitioner herein laid the road after grabbing the land of the applicant without consent from the applicant even after receiving the requisite charges. The applicant being the lawful owner of the land grabbed by the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners herein entitled to seek recovery of possession of the land. The petitioners herein ﬁled counters in LGC denying the allegations made against them and prayed for dismissing the LGC as not maintainable. The petitioners herein contended that the HUDA approved a draft layout in December 1983 and released ﬁnal layout in February 1986 to the Wesley Society without assessing ground situation and whereas a tentative layout in S.No.844/16/A, to the adjacent Annapurna Cooperative Housing Society was approved vide permit No.639/MP2/HUDA/88 dated 08-02-1991 and ﬁnal layout approved vide permit No.6633/MP2/HUDA/88, dated 16-08-1991 and that the boundary dispute raised between the Wesley Cooperative Housing Society and Annapurna Cooperative Housing Society regarding overlapping of land is not ﬁnalized till today. The petitioners herein further contended that Municipal Council vide resolution No.803 dated 31-10-2003, declared and informed to HUDA that it is not possible to implement revised ﬁnal layout released to Wesley Cooperative Housing Society, in view of the fact that a slum was formed in the land and that slum dwellers are residing therein for the past 30 years and that Government has issued house site pattas to slum dwellers and that slum was developed under Environmental Development Scheme and the application schedule property is part and parcel of Cooperative Housing Society, Annapurna layout road and that the applicant did not raise any objection at the time of laying the road and the application submitted by the applicant for building permission was also rejected as her plot is not in existence on ground level position and that Wesley Cooperative Housing Society from whom the applicant purchased the land is not made a party to the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the LGC. The Special Court on the above pleadings framed the following necessary issues for determination of the case: 1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property? 2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding? 3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act XII of 1982? 4) To what relief? On behalf of the applicant, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked and on behalf of the respondents/petitioners herein R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked. Ex.A- 1 is the original registered sale deed dated 28-04-1987 executed by Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The Special Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the rival contentions of both parties, partly allowed the LGC to the extent of 165 sq.yards (266-101 sq.yards) and the petitioners herein are directed to handover the vacant possession of the application schedule property to the said extent. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant and perused the record. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contended that the road was laid long back and since the property was in possession of the slum dwellers since 30 years, they have laid the roads and there is no averment in the application that the petitioners grabbed the land without any lawful entitlement and inasmuch as the municipal Corporation is a statutory authority they have laid the road and the ﬁnding given by the Special Court is not based on record. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Special Court has considered this matter especially in the light of Exs.A-1 and A-6 and after following the judgments of various Courts and also considering the order of this Court held that the petitioners herein have failed to establish their legal entitlement and they have grabbed the land with an intention to lay the road. We have perused the entire judgment of the Special Court. With regard to the ﬁrst issue the Special Court held that the applicant/respondent herein is the owner of the property having title for plot No.27 admeasuring 266 sq.yards in Sy.No.844/1, which was subsequently demarcated as Sy.No.844/23 Malkajgiri village, Vallabhanagar Taluk, Malkajgiri Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District, which now comes within the jurisdiction of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. With regard to the second issue, the Special Court held that it is clear that the petitioners herein have no right to lay 50 feet wide road by encroaching into the land belonging to Wesley Cooperative Society, which was allotted to their members bearing plot Nos.10 to 12, 15, 16 and 27 to 31 of which plot No.27 belongs to the applicant and the petitioners herein have failed to establish their title and legal possession over the application schedule property. While answering the third issue, the Special Court relying upon the decision in State of A.P. v. Special Tribunal[1] held that it is clear that the petitioners herein without lawful entitlement have illegally grabbed the application schedule property to an extent of 165 sq.yards (266 sq.yards-101 sq.yards) and hence, the petitioners herein have been declared as land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2 (d) and (e) of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and answered the issue in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the Special Court allowed the application ﬁled by the applicant partly to the extent of 266 sq.yards - 101 sq.yards = 165 sq.yards as mentioned in Ex.B-11 endorsement made by the Commissioner of ﬁrst respondent Municipality addressed to the applicant in the LGC. The Special Court has elaborately dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and arrived at the ﬁndings based on the evidence and recorded reasons in support of its decision. This Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction cannot interfere unless it is shown that the impugned judgment is perverse or based on no evidence. In the absence of such inﬁrmities, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ 11th September, 2008 NOTE: Furnish C.C. by one week. B/o. SKM [1] 2001 (1) ALT 479 (DB)