IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5629 of 2008 Between: Raunaq Yar Khan S/o.Late Ahand yar Khan R/o.H.No.1-8-449/3 Raunaq Manzil Patigada Road Begumpet Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector R.R Dist R.R Collectorate Lakdi Ka Pul Hyd 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration of A.P Nampally Station Hyd 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Rajendranagar(M) Rajendranagar R.R Dist 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division Rajendranagar Ring Road R.R Dist. 5 The Special Officer & Competent Authority Urban land Ceiling 3rd Floor Chandravihar Complex, M.J Road Hyderabad. 6 The A.P State Waqf Board rep.by its Chairman Haj House Public Garden Road Hyderabad. 7 The Hyderabad Urban Developement Authority Rep.by its Secretary Paigah Palace Begumpet Hyderabad. 8 The A.P State Pollution Control Board Rep.by its Chairman Hyderabad Dist Collectorate, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad. 9 The State of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary(Revenue) A.P State Secretariat Hyderabad. 10 The Artillery Centre Headquarters Rep.by the Defence estate officer pin code No.900398, C/o.56 APO Bandlaguda Jagir(V) Hyd 11 Madhu Infarstructures(Pvt) Ltd rep.by its Manaing Director Madhu Infrastructure site Survey No.89 and 90 Adj to Tipu Khan Bridge and Artillery Centre, Gun Park Bandlaguda Jagair (V) R.R Dist Hyd 12 Diamond Civil Constructions of Ltd., rep.by its M.D Madhu Infrastructure site, Survey No.89 and 90, Adj to Tipu Khan Bridge and Artillery Centre park, Bandlaguda Jagir (V) R.R Dist. 13 Mohad Ismail S/o,Not Konwn to Appicant R/o.H.No.11-3-642 New Mallapally Hyd .....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 call for the records pertaining to I.A.No. 1097/2007 in L.G.C.No.71/2007 and be further pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus setting aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.1097/2007dated 04/01/2008 passed by the Hon'ble Special court constituted under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 as illegal, ill and void and consequently grant and ad-interim injunction order to the petitioner as prayed for in I.A.No.1097/2007 and be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION No : 5629 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Challenging the order dated 4.1.2008 made in I.A. No. 1097 of 2007 in L.G.C. No. 71 of 2007, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed L.G.C.No. 71 of 2007 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, alleging that the application scheduled land comprising of Revenue Survey Nos. 89(part) and 90(part) of Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, totally admeasuring around 23.00 acres is a wakf property. However, in the year 2006, the petitioner noticed that a huge boundary wall is being erected encircling the petition schedule site and construction work being carried out by the respondents 11 and 12 by putting up their name boards. Petitioner further states that as per the letter bearing No. F9/72/Record/RTA, dated 18.6.2007 of the Wakf Board, the land in Survey No. 98 of Bandlaguda Jamir Village admeasuring Ac. 14.34 guntas is a wakf property and a notification has also been issued by the Government of A.P. in that regard on 9.2.1989. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned L.G.C. before the Special Court to declare respondents 11,12 and 13 as land grabbers. In that L.G.C., he filed I.A. No. 1097 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to grant ad- interim injunction restraining the 11th and 12th respondents from carrying on any further construction over the application schedule site and from alienating or encumbering any part or portion of the buildings being constructed over the applicant schedule land in question and also from inducting any third party purchasers into any part or portion of the buildings being constructed over the application schedule land. The Special Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, by the order impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the said I.A. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Special Court without considering the matter in proper perspective has erroneously dismissed the interlocutory application. He further submitted that the Special Court without appreciating the fact that several documents are missing from the Office of Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, has erroneously concluded that the respondents 11 and 12 have valid title in respect of the application schedule premises. He also contended that the respondents 11 and 12 also failed to file any documents before the Special Court to prove that permission has been obtained from the Cantonment Board under the Cantonment Act; that they also failed to obtain Clearance Certificate under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. In such circumstances, the Special Court was not justified in dismissing the I.A. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.11 and 12 contended that one Mohd. Yousuf has purchased the said land from the pattedar through a registered sale deed dated 2.1.1970. He further submitted that the land in Survey No. 90 admeasuring Ac. 14.31 guntas is a Dastagardha Inam Land and the Inams Tribunal has also granted Occupancy Right Certificate for the said land in favour of said Mohd. Yousuf, who created a wakf for an extent of Acs. 4.30 guntas for the purpose of maszid and Maqbera. He further submitted that a gazette notification was also issued by the State Government on 20.7.1978 notifying the said property as Wakf; that the said Mohd. Yousuf plotted out the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.3.08 guntas in Survey Nos.89 and Acs. 3.07 guntas out of Survey No. 90 and sold out the same to different persons who formed into the aforementioned society and when the Government wanted to acquire the said land for development of Bapu Ghat, the members of the society submitted a representation to the Government to delete the lands in Survey Nos. 89 and 90 purchased by them from the notification and the Government after considering the same, deleted the said extent from the proposed acquisition and acquired the remaining extent of Acs.10.30 guntas. They further stated that in the said acquisition, the wakf property was also affected and only an extent of Acs. 0.18 guntas remained with the wakf. However, the land purchased by the members of the society has been classified as patta land and after obtaining necessary permission from the HUDA, they started construction activity. In these circumstances, the allegation of the petitioner that they grabbed the said land is false and baseless. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed by the Defence Estate Officer, Respondent No. 10 before the Special Court, the 10th respondent has clearly stated that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 89 and 90 (part) are not defence lands and as such they have nothing to do with the suit pertaining to these lands. However, on the directions of the Principal Secretary, State Government of Andhra Pradesh vide letter No. 11829/SCB/A1/2004-5, dated 30th December 2005, No objection Certificate was given to Mr. S.M. Hussain Rashid, GPA holder of M/s. Shelter Enclave Mutually Aided Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited, Hyderabad. He further stated that the No Objection Certificate given by them cannot be construed as a permission. It is seen from the record that Respondent No.11 is only a G.P.A. Holder of M/s. Shelter Enclave Mutually Aided Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd., and the said Society has not been made as a party either in the L.G.C. or in the I.A. which was filed before the Special Court. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty of this Court to make the society as a party to the L.G.C. and requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Special Court for passing appropriate orders in the I.A. Under the circumstances, while granting permission to the petitioner to make M/s. Shelter Enclave Mutually Aided Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd., as party to the L.G.C. and in the I.A., we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Special Court passed in I.A. No. 1097 of 2007, dated 4.1.2008 and remand the matter back to the Special Court for passing appropriate orders afresh in the aforementioned I.A. in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by it in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 24th March, 2008 ___________________ S. ASHOK KUMAR, ,J pnb