IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16342 of 2006 Between: Smt. A. UshaSree W/o. Srinivasa rao R/o.H.No. 95, Shanthinagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1Ch. Kishan Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao R/o. #401, Lahari Apartments, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500 044 2M. Vijaya Ram Mohan Rao S/o. Venkateshwar Rao R/o. MIG II, Block No. 23, Flat No. 11, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. 3D. Ranveer Yadav S/o. D. Laxman R/o. # 10-3-274/1/A/1, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad. 4Ch. Prasad Rao S/o. Ch. Hanumantha rao of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Real Estates, R/o. F-1, Priya Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 5Smt. B. Janaki W/o. Sri B. Narsing rao # 610 VI Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 001. 6P. Jagapathi Rao S/o. P. Bashaiah 7Ch. Prasad Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao Hyderabad. 8B. Damodar Rao S/o. Late B. Govind Rao Union Bank Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 9The Special Court, Under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 from the ninth Respondent in L.G.C.No. 121 of 1998 dt. 3-10-2005 as conﬁrmed in Review I.A.No. 1006/2005 dt. 9-6-2006 and quash the same as being illegal, contrary to law and vitiated by errors apparent on the fact of records and other material irregularities. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 16342 of 2006 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Ramulu) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order made in L.G.C. No. 121 of 1998 dated 3.10.2005 and also the order in Review I.A. No. 1006 of 2005 dated 9.6.2006 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein ﬁled L.G.C. No. 121 of 1998 under Section 8 (1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short, ‘the Act’) on the ﬁle of the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad claiming that she is the owner of the application schedule lad and that the respondents grabbed the same without any legal entitlement. She prayed to evict the respondents from the application schedule land and to deliver vacant possession of the same to her after demolishing the structures made thereon by the respondents, to punish the respondents under the provisions of the Act and to award damages and costs. According to the petitioner, one Lalibai and her family members are the owners and possessors of land in S.Nos. 35, 38, 39 and 42 consisting of Ac.7-35 guntas, Ac.6-34 guntas, Ac.5-32 guntas and Ac.3-06 guntas respectively, situated at Madeenaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. They obtained a combined lay out from Chandanagar Gram Panchayat making the said land into plots. They have given G.P.A. in favour of one V. Madanmohan Rao for the purpose of sale of the abovementioned plots. Out of the above said land, the applicant herein purchased Plot No.24 situated in S.No. 35 admeasuring 454 Sq. yards under a registered sale deed dated 28.6.1996. While so, the respondents, without heeding the protests of the applicant, grabbed the schedule land and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted. The 1st respondent ﬁled counter stating that he is no way connected and nothing to do with the application schedule property and has no interest in the same; he did not even know the location of the schedule land; he neither owns nor possesses or grabbed the schedule land bearing plot No.24; he was implicated with some ulterior motive without ascertaining the truth and, therefore, the L.G.C. is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The 2nd respondent, who is a Civil Contractor, ﬁled counter stating that he is not at all concerned with the schedule land; he was oﬀered to execute certain civil works such as laying of roads in the land belonging to “Venkateswara Real Estates” situated in S.No.34, accordingly, he carried out the said works located in S.No.34 and that he is no way connected with Plot No.24; hence, the application may be dismissed. The 8th respondent ﬁled counter denying the parawise allegations. He claimed that himself and respondents 4 to 7 are the absolute owners of 14 acres of land situated in S.No.34/1 of Madeenaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District having purchased the same from 3rd respondent and others by virtue of registered sale deeds. They had obtained lay out from HUDA under proceedings dated 3.6.1999 for developing the land into house sites and they are in possession of the said lands. He further stated that they are no way concerned with the schedule land and they have never grabbed the same at any point of time and that the present application has been ﬁled with false allegations and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. Respondents 4 to 7 ﬁled memo adopting the counter ﬁled by respondent No.8. The case was dismissed against 3rd respondent as not pressed. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: “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 on the applicant? 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers in relation to the application schedule property? 4. To what relief?” To substantiate her claim, the petitioner – applicant examined herself as PW-1 and got examined one K. Shashikumar, GPA holder, as PW-2. Further, she got marked several documents as Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence, the Special Court has come to the conclusion that the applicant failed to prove prima facie title to the application schedule property and therefore there is no scope for the respondents to rebut the same. The Special Court further held as follows: “The application has to be dismissed as the applicant did not prove her title. But the 8th respondent as RW-3 stated in his evidence that R-4 to R-8 are partners of Sri Venkateswara Real Estates, a Partnership Firm and that they purchased 14 acres of land in S.No.34/1 situated at Madeenaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District under various registered sale deeds covered under Exs.B-1 to B-8. He stated that he along with respondents 4 to 7 submitted an application along with proposed layout plans to HUDA and consequently the HUDA accorded sanction of tentative layout in the year 1997 subject to various terms and conditions. Thereafter, they have executed and completed all the layout works such as laying roads, water and drainage connection etc. Consequently the HUDA accorded final layout approval and thereafter they sold the plots to third parties also. It was suggested to RW3 that as per the Village Map the southern boundary between S.No.34 and 35 is not straight line. The respondents did not ﬁle any copy of the plan attached to the sale deeds. But the applicant is not claiming any land in S.No.34 or 34/1. Considering the above facts it can be concluded that respondents established their title over the application schedule land”. Thus holding, the Special Court dismissed the L.G.C. ﬁled by the applicant vide its order dated 3.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant ﬁled Review I.A. No. 1006 of 2005 but the Special Court dismissed the said I.A. on 9.6.2006 on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record was brought to its notice. Hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant Sri M.V. Durga Prasad strenuously contended that the ﬁndings recorded by the Special Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.24 in S.No. 35 of Madeenaguda village , Serilingampally mandal of Rangareddi District admeasuring 454 Sq. yards, which is the application schedule property. The petitioner obtained title and possession in respect of the same under registered sale deed dated 28.6.1996, marked as Ex.A-2, from her predecessors Smt. Lalibai and ﬁve others. The said owners divided their land in S.Nos. 35, 38, 39 and 42 of Madeenaguda village, totally admeasuring Ac.23.27 guntas under Ex.A-1 lay out dated 14.9.1971 and sold the application schedule property to the petitioner and ever since the purchase of the application schedule property the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further contended that the 1st respondent is the brother of 4th and 5th respondents and brother-in-law of respondents 6 to 8; that though the 1st respondent is only a senior Inspector in the Excise Department, he has got lot of inﬂuence in the Police and Revenue Departments. Respondent No.4 got ﬂoated M/s Sri Venkateswara Real Estates in his name and in the name of respondents 5 to 8 who are his close relatives. Respondents 1 to 3 illegally encroached into the application schedule property and therefore L.G.C. No. 121 of 1998 was ﬁled against them. It was claimed by them that M/s Venkateswara Real Estates has purchased the land in S.No. 34 of Madeenaguda village which is situated on the northern side of the application schedule property belonging to the petitioner under originals of Exs.B-1 to B-8 sale deeds from the 3rd respondent and others. Therefore, the petitioner ﬁled I.A. No. 456 of 2000 impleading respondents 4 to 8 herein. The Special Court considered the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated 28.10.1998 in Proceedings No.B/2860/98 submitted before it under Rule 6 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1998 and also the report under Ex.A-3 dated 17.4.1999 clearly showing the encroachments made by the contesting respondents and allowed the said application by an order dated 29.1.2001. However, after trial, the Special Court erroneously dismissed L.G.C. No. 121 of 1998 by an order dated 3.10.2005 ignoring the material available on record including the Commissioner’s report and therefore the petitioner had to ﬁle Review I.A. No. 1006 of 2005, which was also dismissed by an order dated 9.6.2006 without properly appreciating the issues involved therein. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel, that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri E. Ajay Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contended that this is a frivolous litigation. The petitioner has no title whatsoever to the application schedule property. She has failed to discharge her primary duty to show that she has prima facie title calling for the rebuttal of the respondents herein. The L.G.C. was ﬁled initially against respondents 1 to 3 and it was dismissed against respondent No.3. Respondents 1 and 2 stated that they have nothing to do with the application schedule property and nothing speciﬁc has been averred by the petitioner against respondents 4 to 8. Since the petitioner failed to prove prima facie title and there was absolutely no evidence against the respondents to come to the conclusion that they have encroached upon the alleged plot No.24 of the petitioner, the Special Court has rightly held that the respondents are not land grabbers and therefore rightly dismissed the L.G.C. as well as the Review I.A. ﬁled by the petitioner and that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. The petitioner-applicant as PW-1 stated in her evidence that she purchased the application schedule property to an extent of 454 Sq. yards under a registered sale deed under Ex.A-2 dated 28.6.1996 and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her vendors Lalibai and her family members got land to an extent of Ac.7-35 guntas in S.No.35, an extent of Ac.6-34 guntas in S.No.38, an extent of Ac.5-32 guntas in S.No.39 and Ac.3-06 guntas in S.No.42, totaling an extent of Ac.22- 07 guntas and they got combined approved lay out from Chandanagar Gram Panchayat under Ex.A-1. According to the petitioner, out of the said land, she has purchased plot No.24 consisting of 454 Sq. yards under a registered sale deed. That being so, the respondents grabbed application schedule property in March, 1998 without any legal entitlement, therefore, they are liable for eviction. In support of her case, she has also got examined the G.P.A. holder of Lalibai and others as PW-2, who reiterated the facts as deposed by PW-1. The petitioner had also ﬁled documents such as Exs.A-4 to A-6. Ex.A-4 is the General Power of Attorney (Notary) executed in his favour, Ex.A-5 is the letter from HUDA to the Commissioner of Serilingampally Municipality and Ex.A-6 is the true- copy of ﬁnal residential layout issued by HUDA. Whereas, it is the case of respondents 1 to 3 that they have nothing to do with the application schedule property; that the other contesting respondents 4 to 8 purchased an extent of 14 acres of land situated in S.No.34/1 under various sale deeds; that they are not the land grabbers as alleged by the petitioner; that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie case in her favour and, therefore, the L.G.C. is not maintainable. Explaining about the right, title and ownership of the respondents in S.No.34/1, the 1st respondent as RW-1 and 2nd respondent as RW-2 stated in their evidence that they have nothing to do with the application schedule land; that they have no connection whatsoever with the application schedule property; that they worked as Civil Contractors only for other respondents and that they are added as parties in this case with a view to harass them. The 8th respondent as RW-3 explained about the purchase of 14 acres of land in S.No.34/1 under the originals of Exs.B-1 to B-8 stating that ever since the date of purchase they are in possession and enjoyment of the land. RW-3 further explained in his evidence that they have applied for the proposed lay out plans to HUDA and HUDA sanctioned tentative layout. As per the layout they have executed and completed all the layout works such as laying of roads, water and drainage connections and consequently the HUDA accorded ﬁnal layout and thereafter they have alienated, conveyed and transferred the residential plots in favour of various individual purchasers; that they are not at all land grabbers as alleged by the applicant and that the very case of the applicant is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. According to the pleadings and the evidence of the petitioner, she purchased Plot No.24 situated in part of S.Nos.35, 38, 39 and 42 of Madeenaguda village, but in Ex.A-2 registered sale deed it is described that she purchased plot Nos. 24 and 24A. There is no plot such as Plot No.24A in Ex.A- 1 approved lay out, but Plot No.24A is described in Ex.A-2 registered sale deed with dimensions as 60x21 and 60x25, admeasuring approximately 166 Sq. yards. The boundaries of the application schedule land, more particularly, the eastern side in Ex.A-2 and the plan attached to the registered sale deed, are described as plot Nos. 13 and 13A, but in Ex.A-1 approved layout plan there is no such plot No.13A. So, evidently the recitals in Ex.A-2 registered sale deed are not correct and the said Plot No.13A is not in existence. Further, in the sale deed, the very application schedule land is described as existing in S.No.35 part, but in the evidence, PW-1 stated that it is located in S.No.34. According to the pleadings, plot No.24 is situated in part of S.Nos.35, 38, 39 and 42 of Madeenaguda village. The Commissioner pointed out in his report about this discrepancy. According to the Commissioner’s report, land in S.No.35 is situated towards the south of S.No.34 and the Survey Numbers 42, 39, 38 and 35 exist one after the other. Therefore, there is no possibility to conclude that the application schedule land is in S.No.35 part or in other survey numbers as pleaded by the petitioner. According to Ex.A-2 registered sale deed, it is clear that the application schedule land is situated in S.No.35 and not in part of S.No.35. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is contrary to the documents Exs.A-1 and A-2. In Ex.A-2 sale deed it was mentioned that the vendor of the petitioner got total extent of Ac.23-27 guntas of land in S.Nos.35, 38, 39 and 42, but in the evidence PW-1 explained giving details of each survey number and its extent and asserted that total extent of Ac.22-07 guntas of land is situated in all these survey numbers. Here, it may be noted that as per the approved lay out plan there are no plots such as plot Nos.24A and 13A. As per Ex.A-1 lay out, all the plots were given measurements, which come to total extent of 300 Sq. yards of plots and when it comes to the northern plots, there are no details of measurements of the plots, where the disputed land is situated. Thus, the plots ﬁrst started with clear measurements and ended without measurements in Ex.A-1 approved layout plan. Further, it is interesting to notice that originally the case was ﬁled against respondents 1 to 3 alleging that they have grabbed the application schedule land. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 8 were added as parties. But, no details such as their act of land grabbing etc. were mentioned in the L.G.C. Admittedly no details or pleadings of any act of land grabbing against respondents 4 to 8 are mentioned even in the amended petition ﬁled by the applicant. In the absence of any allegations or pleadings against respondents 4 to 8 who are the original owners of property in S.No.34/1, it can be concluded that there is no allegation of land grabbing whatsoever against respondents 4 to 8. Asfar as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, it is noticed that they are no way connected with the application schedule land and that they simply worked as civil contractors of other respondents in laying roads and getting required connections. In such a case, respondents 1 to 3 have nothing to do with the application schedule land. It is further interesting to notice that PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted that she did not know the pleading in her concise statement that the schedule property is located in other survey numbers also. She further stated that in the ﬁrst instance the application was ﬁled against R-1 to R-3 and subsequently R-4 to R-8 were impleaded. She further stated that she had not ﬁled any document showing the extent located in S.Nos.35, 38, 39 and 42; that the vendors under Ex.A-2 and their G.P.A. are not parties to this L.G.C. and that the respondents in this L.G.C. are not parties in L.G.C. No. 122 of 1998 in which Commissioner was appointed and his report was ﬁled under the original of Ex.A-3. She further stated that Ex.A-3 related to only S.No.35 but not to any other survey numbers. These admissions on the part of the petitioner-applicant go to show that she is not conversant with the case and failed to explain her own case. Under those circumstances and in view of the defects pointed out in Ex.A-2 sale deed and Ex.A-1 approved layout, particularly as to the location of survey numbers and inconsistent pleadings, the Special Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to prove her prima facie title over the application schedule property. Thus, the Special Court rightly held that the respondents cannot be termed as land grabbers and accordingly dismissed the L.G.C. and the Review I.A. filed by the petitioner. Having considered the material available on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Special Court has considered each and every aspect and rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out any case in her favour and accordingly dismissed the L.G.C. and the Review I.A. ﬁled by her. No reasons are made out in this writ petition warranting interference of this Court with the said orders passed by the Special Court. Further, in view of the fact that respondents 1 to 3 have nothing to do with the land and there are no allegations of land grabbing against respondents 4 to 8, there is no necessity of referring to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 since it is settled proposition of law that in a case of this nature, ‘land grabbing’ is the sine qua non to be considered. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: -09-2008. MVB.