HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.13589 of 2010 Between: Ankem Ramachandra Rao …PETITIONER(S) a n d Smt V. Sunitha Rani …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.13589 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 20.04.2010 in I.A.No.413 of 2010 in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in L.G.C.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the Act’), Hyderabad, and, consequently, to restore I.A.S.R.No.1354 of 2010 on its file. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent herein has filed L.G.C.No.45 of 2007 before the Special Court against one Prakash seeking to declare him as land grabber and to declare her as the owner of the land bearing plot No.34, admeasuring 288 Sq. yards forming part in Sy.No.844/1, subsequently demarcated as 844/23 of Malkajgiri village, Vallabhanagar Taluk, Rangareddy District, and to handover the vacant land to her. The petitioner filed I.A.No.774 of 2007 therein seeking to implead him as second respondent. The said application was allowed and he was impleaded as 2nd respondent in the L.G.C. The case of the respondent is that her mother purchased the said property through a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1987 for valuable consideration from their vendors, and that her mother put boundary stones and constructed a small room therein, and that, after the death of her mother, she succeeded to the said property. It is her case that the petitioner herein grabbed the said land without her consent and without any right or title. Petitioner herein claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land for the land 30 years but did not state how he acquired the said property. In fact, in his application seeking to implead him as respondent in the L.G.C., the petitioner stated that the land is under his occupation and he is ready to pay compensation towards the land in an extent of 200 sq. yards to the respondent within one moth from 09.09.2007 and that he has constructed a building therein by spending huge amount. Later, a compromise petition in I.A.No.54 of 2009 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. signed by both the petitioner and the respondent was filed in the L.G.C. and, according to the said compromise, the petitioner herein has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the respondent towards compensation for the part of the land under his possession i.e. in an extent of 188 sq. yards out of 288 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.844/23 of Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, as shown in the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule 6(2) of the Act; the respondent has agreed to receive the same towards full and final settlement of her claim over the said property; the respondent, her heirs and legal representatives shall not have any claim over the said property in as much as she was compensated by the petitioner; the petitioner has paid Rs.10,68,000/- out of Rs.14,00,000/- to the respondent and, towards the balance of Rs.3,32,000/-, issued three post dated cheques in favour of the respondent; and the compromise is binding on the respondent subject to realization of the cheques. By order dated 19.01.2009, the Special Court, recorded the compromise in terms of the compromise petition and closed the L.G.C. as settled out of Court against the petitioner herein. It is stated that in as much as the post dated cheques have been dishonoured, the respondent has filed C.C.No.516 of 2009 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner. Later, the petitioner filed IASR No.1354 of 2010 in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in LGC No.45 of 2007 seeking to set aside the compromise order dated 19.01.2009, along with I.A.No.413 of 2010 in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in LGC No.45 of 2007 seeking to condone the delay of 444 days in filing the petition (IASR No.1354 of 2010) to set aside the compromise in I.A.No.54 of 2009. The Special Court, by order dated 20.04.2010, dismissed the application seeking to condone the delay and, consequently, IASR No.1354 of 2010 seeking to set aside the compromise order, also stood rejected. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking to condone the delay of 444 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the compromise order. The reasons stated therein are that he was not properly advised; he was fraudulently made to enter into compromise and execute compromise petition; only on the pressure, threats and inducement by the respondent through third parties, he paid Rs.10,68,000/- to the respondent; the respondent out of dishonest intention had shown the said payment as compensation without conferring any right or title or executing any document in his favour which clearly establishes that she has no title; and as he, being in adverse possession of the said property, wants to contest the L.G.C. case. It is stated that, as the compromise was made by playing fraud on him, he filed the application seeking to set aside the compromise order dated 19.01.2009 and, in so far as the delay of 444 days is concerned, it is stated that he has applied for certain certified copies and got the same only on 20.11.2009 and he has also obtained other documents and plans to support his case and so the delay occurred. It is stated that the petitioner has paid taxes to the Malkajgiri Municipality. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said contention as the payment of municipal tax will not confer any right or title on the occupant. Admittedly, no title deeds have been filed by the petitioner even before the Special Court. In fact, the petitioner has accepted that he is in occupation of 188 Sq. yards out of 288 Sq. yards which was purchased by the mother of the respondent under registered sale deed. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 20.04.2010 in I.A.No.413 of 2010 in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in L.G.C.No.45 of 2007 and, consequently, to restore the IASR No.1354 of 2010 in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in LGC No.45 of 2007. We do not see any sufficient cause explaining the delay of 444 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the compromise order. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking to condone the delay before the Special Court does not disclose any reason much less sufficient reason explaining the inordinate delay of 444 days in filing the application to set aside the compromise order dated 19.01.2009. A perusal of the order dated 20.04.2010 makes it clear that the Court below dismissed the said delay application on the ground that since fraud is alleged in the said compromise, the said fraud has to be established in a Civil Court and to establish the said fraud, the above petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be filed in the same Court and not before that Court. Though we are not in agreement with the reasons given by the Court below, but, at the same time, since we have noticed that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay, on this ground, we dismiss the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 16th June, 2010 CVRK