IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 29119 of 2008 Between: Ahmed Moinuddin, S/o. Muzafaruddin Khan, Rep by its GPA Holder A.M. Qureshi, S/o. M.A.A. Qureshi, aged 46 years, Occ : Business, r/o. 6-9-518, Spl. C Class, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Non Resident Indian Investment Corporation, (ANRICH), O/o. the 5th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerabagh Hyderabad Rep by its Deputy Director Industries and Liquidator Mr. Y. Ajay Kumar, S/o. Late Rama Rao, aged 46 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 2 Hon'ble Specail Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1986, at B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Venkateshwar Co-operative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Rep by its Secretary, Sri Ratan Jain, 3-6-496, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Ramana Pradeep Reddy, S/o. Madanmohan Reddy, 6-2-331/3, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Madasu Ramachander, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 6 Madasu Venkatesh, S/o. Late Narasaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 7 Madasu Padma Rao, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 8 Madasu Anjaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 9 Madasu Narsinga Rao, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 10 Madasu Peda Anjaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 11 Madasu Nagesh, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 12 Madasu Yadaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 13 Madasu Ravinder, S/o. Narsaiah, r/o. Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 14 Madasu Narsing Rao, S/o. Ramachandraiah, r/o. 1-104, Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 15 Madasu Venkatesham, S/o. Ramachandraiah, r/o. 1-104, Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 16 Madasu Vishnu Murthy, S/o. Ramachandraiah, r/o. 1-104, Mallampet (V) Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy District. 17 M.D. Bhuran, S/o. Vazeer, r/o. 4-209, Moosapet, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 18 G. Sham Rao, S/o. Mallaiah, 8-4-325/9, Prem Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 19 Mushraf Sultana, W/o. Md. Sarwar, R/o. 4-209, Moosapet, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District. 20 V. Ravinder, S/o. V. Manohar, 126/C, L.I.G. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. 21 K. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Chukkaiah, Ketengoor Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or a direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Second respondent in allowing the application bearing IA No. 818 of 2008 in L.G.C. No. 111 of 1998 dated 28-11-2008 as illegal, bad, contrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of the provisions and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of the provisions of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Civil Procedure Code and consequently set aside the order of the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 29119 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.11.29008 passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in I.A.No. 828 of 2008 LGC No. 111 of 1998 whereby the amendment sought by the 1st respondent herein of the Land Grabbing Case was allowed. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the LGC. 2. The writ petitioner is the 15th respondent in LGC No. 111 of 1998. The applicant, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed the LGC originally against the respondents 1 to 11 alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 grabbed Ac.8-00 in Sy.Nos. 81 and 84 and the respondents 3 to 11 were trying to grab Ac.5-16 guntas in Sy.No. 81 situated at Bollaram village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak district. Thereafter the respondents 12 to 14 were impleaded as per order dated 4.11.2003 in IA No. 725 of 2003. Again the respondent No.15 who is the petitioner herein was impleaded as per order dated 9.9.2004 in IA No. 1288 of 2003. Thereafter the respondents 16 to 20 were impleaded as per order dated 17.6.2005 in IA No. 302 of 2005. Subsequently the applicant filed IA No. 806 of 2005 for amendment of the LGC and it is averred in the said petition that the 15th respondent is claiming the land in Sy.Nos. 297 and 81/1 of Bollarum village which is also claimed by the respondents 3 to 14 by creating a fabricated sale deed in collusion with third parties and all the documents filed by the respondents were fabricated documents and they were created in collusion with revenue officials and third parties belonging to the applicant’s institution. It is also stated that the respondents 16 to 20 had no right, title or interest in the property and hence the respondents are sought to be declared land grabbers and the applicant may be declared owner of the schedule property. The said amendment petition was allowed by the Special Court on 29.9.2005. After this amendment, the applicant filed another IA No. 828 of 2008 seeking amendment of the LGC to the effect that the respondents 1 and 2 grabbed Ac.9-00 of land in Sy.Nos. 81 and 84 and the respondents 1 to 20 grabbed Ac.5-16 guntas in Sy.No. 81, apart from other amendments. By the impugned order, the said amendment application was allowed by the Special Court, against which, this writ petition is filed. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner who is 15th respondent in LGC purchased an area of Ac.3-16 guntas in Sy.Nos. 297 and 0-25 guntas in Sy.No. 81/2 situated at Bollarum village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District in 2005 from the previous owners of the land Sri Narasimhulu and others and he claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property since 2005 and that he is not a land gabber. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1. 4. It is the case of the applicant before the Special Court that the schedule property was allotted to the applicant’s Corporation for development of Industrial Estate and for allotment of developed Industrial plots exclusively to prospective N.R.I. Enterprises. It is alleged by the applicant originally in the LGC that the respondents 1 and 2 have grabbed Ac.8-00 of land in Sy.Nos. 81 and 84 and the respondents 3 to 11 were trying to grab Ac.5-16 guntas of land in Sy.No. 81 situated at Bollaram village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak district. The applicant sought amendment of the LGC by filing IA No. 828 of 2008 which was allowed by the Special Court under the impugned order. The amendment is to the following effect, “1. In column 11 details be deleted and add the following: “The respondents 1 & 2 grabbed Ac.9-00 of land in Sy.No. 81 & 84 as mentioned in schedule Item-I-A and B and respondents 1 to 20 Ac.5-16 guntas in Sy.No. 81 as mentioned in the schedule as Item-II”. 2. In column 12 details deleting the following “Total Ac.14-16 guntas” 3. Add the following at the end of prayer “and to evict the respondents from the respect portions claimed by them from Item-I of schedule 1 a & b and Item-II of properties by removing the structures if any raised by the respondents and deliver vacant possession to the applicant with cost” 4. In concise statement for the words; trying to grab substitute the word “grabbed”. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the extent, location and identity of the schedule property. The only contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that in the original LGC it was alleged by the applicant that the respondents are trying to grab the schedule property, whereas by way of amendment it is sought to be alleged that the entire schedule land was already grabbed by the respondents and if the amendment is allowed, the entire nature of the case will change. 6. We have perused the record and found that even in the original LGC it is clearly averred that the respondents 1 and 2 have already grabbed the schedule property and the respondents 3 to 11 are trying to grab the schedule property. Subsequently the other respondents 12 to 20 were impleaded in the LGC and an amendment of the LGC was sought on the ground that the respondents have illegally encroached into the schedule property and grabbed the same. In fact, the 15th respondent who is the writ petitioner was not aggrieved of the order of the Special Court impleading him as 15th respondent in the LGC on the allegation that he also grabbed the schedule property. He was also not aggrieved when consequential amendment was made to LGC vide order dated 29.9.2005 in I.A.No. 806 of 2005 and a specific allegation of grabbing was made against him in concise statement. Further, in the counter filed before the Special Court the 15th respondent claimed that he is in possession of certain extent of the schedule property having been purchased by him in 2005. It appears that there are rival claims of the parties with respect to schedule property and it is for the respective parties to substantiate their claims before the Special Court in respect of schedule property whether the respondents are land grabbers or whether they have lawful entitlement to the schedule property or whether the applicant is the owner of the schedule property. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Special Court has rightly allowed the amendment petition and we do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.12.3.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}