IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20754 of 2002 Between: Shaganti Sukumar ..... PETITIONER AND K.Venkatachalam and 47 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20754 of 2002 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein is the applicant in LGC.119/1995 on the file of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Court”). The LGC was filed under Sec.8(1) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 (for short “the Act”) initially against the Respondents Nos.1 to 32, alleging that the applicant along with the Respondents Nos.31 and 32, his uncle, his mother, residents of Ananthapur town and District are the original owners of the land of an extent of Ac.4.21 gts in Sy.Nos.283, 284, 285 of Malkajgiri village and municipality, Ranga Reddy District, and the Respondents Nos.1 to 30 therein have occupied and grabbed the said land in 1992 without the knowledge and consent of the applicant and raised unauthorized structures therein. 2. Initially, the Special Court had taken cognizance of LGC.119/1995 against the Respondents. Thereafter, the Respondents Nos.33 to 49 were added as parties to the LGC. The respondent No.31 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as the Respondents Nos.50 to 56 and the Respondents Nos.6, 13, 16 to 19, 25, 26, 29 & 32 remained ex parting the case. Out of the remained respondents, some of the respondents filed counters and some of them had not filed counters. Respondents Nos.22 to 24, 47, 33 to 46, 48, 49 and 31 contested the matter. The Special Court by the impugned order dated 03.07.2001 dismissed the LGC, against which, this writ petition is filed. 3 . This writ petition is dismissed for default against the Respondents Nos.1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 23, 24, and 27 vide orders of this Court dated 18.04.2011, and the same has become final. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents herein that the writ petition itself has been dismissed against some of the respondents who have contested before the Special Court. As per the impugned judgment of the Special Court, the land in question, said to be belonged to the applicant and the Respondents Nos.31 and 32, has not at all been identified or established. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have a different relief against similarly situated respondents herein against whom the writ petition is surviving, as the decree and the judgment of the Special Court are not severable. Heard both the counsel. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Special Court. 5. It is the case of the applicant that the land originally belonged to his grandfather late Mallanna and after his death, his sons Rajanarasaiah, the father of the applicant and S.Pandurangam (R31), succeeded the same. After the death of Rajanarasaiah, the applicant, his mother (R32) and his brother Ramulu, being the legal heirs of Rajanarasaiah succeeded the said property. The brother of the applicant Ramulu expired unmarried and his share devolved on the applicant and his mother (R32). It is stated that as the Respondents Nos.31 and 32 being old and unable to move from bed, they were shown as the respondents. It is stated that subsequently the Respondent No.32 died and hence the Respondent Nos.50 to 56 were brought on record as the legal heirs of the Respondent No.32. 6. The applicant contends that himself and the Respondents Nos.31 and 32 were in possession and enjoyment of the said property from 1975 and they were cultivating the same uninterruptedly and were paying necessary tax regularly till 1992. Relevant pahanies show that they are the owners and pattedars of the property in question. It is stated that as the Respondents Nos.31 and 32 became and unable to move, they have handed over the said land to the applicant for cultivation and the applicant used to pay remuneration to them as per the arrangement made and thus, the applicant was in the physical possession of the entire land till 1992. The applicant fell ill due to jaw cancer in 1992 and was bedridden for some time. He went to Mumbai for treatment and after jaw was removed and then he came to Hyderabad in 1995. On his personal inspection of his property, he found that there was no open land, and the land was converted into plots and some constructions were being made. Thus, it is the case of the applicant that the Respondents Nos.1 to 30, 33 to 49 have grabbed his land and raised structures and houses on the said land without any lawful entity, and therefore, they are liable to be declared as land grabbers and consequently are liable to be evicted therefrom after demolishing and removing the structures thereon. 7 . Some of the respondents have filed separate individual counters denying the averments and contentions of the applicant. It is the case of the respondents that none of them are in the possession of the application schedule property bearing Sy.Nos.283 to 285 of Neredmet of Malkajgiri Municipality of Ranga Reddy District. The applicant, his mother (32nd respondent) his uncle (31st respondent) and his brother Raju were the original owners of an extent of Ac.44.29 gts of land situated in Sy.Nos.281, 282/1, 287 and 288/1 of Neredmet village of Malkajgiri Mandal and they executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 05.03.1979 in favour of the Respondent No.48-Y.R.K.Murthy in respect of the said land. The GPA holder-Respondent No.48 sold an extent of 26,700 sq.yards out of the aforesaid land, vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.1980 in favour of Radhakrishna Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited, Neredmet (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”) and delivered the possession of the property to the said society. Subsequently, the Society converted the said land into plots and sold away the plots to its members, including some of the respondents herein, under various registered sale deeds and delivered the possession of the same to them. Earlier to it, the applicant, his uncle, his mother and brother through their GPA-Y.R.K.Murthy, Respondent No.48 sold plot Nos.214 and 215 in favour of the Respondents Nos.20 and 21 respectively under registered sale deeds dated 17.10.1979, whereas they are part of Sy.Nos.281, 282/2, 287, 288/1 of Neredmet village of Malkajgiri Mandal. Accordingly, they obtained permission from Malkajgiri Municipality for construction of houses therein, situated in Sy.Nos.281, 282/2, 287 and 288/1 alone, and their plots are not in the application schedule property. 8. It is stated that from the date of their purchase, the respondents have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of their respective plots since 1980 onwards. The applicant and the other co-owners i.e. the Respondents Nos.31 and 32 kept quite all years i.e. for more than the statutory period of acquiring the title by adverse possession. In fact the applicant having waited for more than 20 years and, with an ulterior motive and in collision with his family members, filed the LGC with a view to harass the respondents and to extract money from them, having sold their property in favour of the Society whereas the Society sold the same in favour of its members. It is stated that none of the respondents were in possession of the application schedule property. In fact, previously Shaganti Shankaramma, relative of the applicant filed LGC.153/1989 on the file of the Special Court against 66 respondents in respect of the self- same land in Sy.Nos.281, 282/1, 287, 288/1 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.08.1993. Though the mother and uncle of the applicant not supported the case of the applicant, the legal heirs of the 31st respondent, namely, the Respondents Nos.50 to 56 supported the case of the applicant. 9. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, it is held by the Special Court that the applicant has failed to establish that the plots in the occupation of the respondents are within the limits of the application schedule property in Sy.Nos.283, 284 and 285 of Neredpet village of Malkajgiri Mandal and therefore, the respondents cannot be said to be the grabbers of the application schedule land. In fact, the applicant and his other co-owners have already sold the plots in favour of some of the respondents, situated within the extent of 26,700 sq.yards, originally purchased by the Society, and therefore, the respondents are the bona fide purchasers of the said plots for full consideration from the true owners, and the respondents have perfected their title over the property by adverse possession. 10. Before the Special Court, the applicant got himself examined as PW 1 and also got examined concerned Mandal Revenue Officer as PW 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 24 were examined and marked Exs.B1 to B56. The Court examined a Commissioner as CW 1 and marked Ex.C1-Report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ex.C2-Report of the Commissioner, Ex.C3-Plan showing the location of survey numbers, Ex.C4-Plan showing the details of the survey numbers of the application schedule property and Ex.X1- certified copy of the judgment in LGC.153/1989. 11. To establish the case of the applicant, he was himself examined as PW 1 and stated that the application schedule property was his ancestral property, and he was the owner and pattedar of the agricultural land of Ac.4.21 gts in Sy.No.283, 284 and 285 of Malkajgiri village. After the death of his father in 1975, his mother and himself cultivated the land upto 1992. Thereafter, he went to Mumbai and underwent operation for his jaw. After returning from Mumbai, he found that the respondents and others constructed houses in his property by laying plots, and therefore, he lodged Ex.P1- police complaint. Exs.A2 to A5 are the certified copies of the pahanies of the schedule property for the years 1986-87, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1991-92 which show that the applicant and the Respondents Nos.31 and 32 are the pattedars of Sy.Nos.283 to 285. 12. In the cross examination, he admitted that as per Ex.A2 pahani in Col.No.20 for the year 1986-87 it was mentioned that there were houses. In Ex.A3 pahani also in Col.No.12 against the names of the pattedars, the name of the petitioner, his brother Ramulu, Pandu (31st respondent) and Ananthamma (32nd respondent) were mentioned, and in Col.No.20 of it, it was mentioned as house plots. He also admitted that he along with his brother Ramulu, who died in 1980, his mother and uncle sold away the land in Sy.Nos.281, 282/1, 287 and 288/1 of Malkajgiri to Radhakrishna Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Neredmet. He also admitted that one Ananthaiah was one of the sons of his grandfather Shaganti Rajanna and one Shankaramma was the wife of Ananthaiah. The said Shankaramma filed LGC.153/1989 in respect of the self-same land in Sy.Nos.283, 284 and 285 as well as other survey numbers of Malkajgiri village against 66 respondents, some of whom were the respondents herein and the said LGC was dismissed vide Ex.X- 1 judgment dated 26.09.1993. He admitted that he had not filed any declaration before the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities. He also admitted that he had not filed any tax receipt showing the payment of land revenue. 13. PW 2 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. He did not say anything, except that he had sent his report while enclosing certain pahanies. 14. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, who was appointed as the Commissioner to demarcate and to note down the physical features of the land in question along with other land examined as CW 1 after his retirement in January 2001, stated that on verification, he found that Sy.Nos.283 to 285, 287 and 288/1 were developed with lay out and constructions. The original boundary stones were not found on the spot, and for the fixation of the survey numbers, he had taken the boundaries of railway track and graveyard existing there as the base. The demarcation was taken up with reference to the available tippans. He admitted that he could not identify as to where and in which survey number the plot Nos.214 and 215 sold by the applicant would exist and lie in Ex.C-4 plan. He stated that he had done physical verification and demarcation, as mentioned in Ex.C-2 report. As the entire land was found developed with constructions and as the boundary stones were not available, therefore, he had taken the railway track and burial ground as the base and demarcated the survey numbers with reference to available tippans and the village map. But no such tippans or village map were filed in support of his report. Though he prepared the report with the help of village map and some of the availability tippans, but the village map was not at all enclosed to his report and the same was also not shown to the contesting respondents. He admitted that in the location sketch, he has not shown the physical features of the subject three survey numbers, but it related to the development of all the survey numbers. Each survey number shall have a tippon. The request of the respondents to show individual occupations in each survey number was not complied with, as the entire area was developed and covered by the structures. The physical features of the three survey numbers of the application schedule property were only shown, but not other survey numbers, as the entire area was fully developed. He denied suggestion that the demarcation of all survey numbers was done arbitrarily and not with reference to the village map and tippons and he had concentrated only on three survey numbers and the report was vague and the plots in the occupation of the respondents were not identifiable. 15. As against the said evidence, the respondents examined as RWs 1 to 24, stated that they purchased the plot Nos.C1, C7, C8, C21-1, C22-2, C33, C20, C12, C11, C3 and part of C4 & C5, C2, C30, C34, C23, C13, C21, C9, C32 and Plot Nos.214, 215 etc. situated in the Sy.Nos.281, 282/1, 287 and 288/1 of Neredmet village, Malkajigiri Mandal under various sale deeds of different extents. In fact some of the plots were purchased from the applicant and his co-owners. The said plots purchased would not form part and parcel of the land claimed by the applicant and the Respondents Nos.31 and 32 in Sy.Nos.283, 284 and 285. The pahanies and sale deeds would show existence of house plots. 16. It is the case of the respondents that none of them occupied or constructed any house in the application schedule property in question bearing Sy.Nos.283 to 285 and they are in occupation of plots, purchased from the Society. In fact, the Society purchased the said property from the applicant, his mother, brother and his uncle, and thereafter it converted the land into plots and sold the same to its members including some of the respondents herein. The plot Nos.214 and 215 said to have been occupied by the Respondents Nos.20 and 21 are part and parcel of the lay out plans of the Society. Thus, it is contended that the plots in the occupation of the respondents are not situated within the survey numbers claimed by the applicant and the applicant has failed to establish that the respondents have grabbed his land. 17. It is not in dispute that the applicant and other co-owners sold 26,700 sq.yards of the land under Ex.B19 sale deed dated 19.12.1979 in favour of Radhakrishna Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Neredmet and thereafter the Society converted the land into plots, giving plot numbers and allotted the same to its members. In fact, it is the case of the applicant that as per Ex.A50 lay out plan obtained in the year 1967, the pattedars retained certain extent of site in Sy.Nos.283 to 285 for construction of a cinema theatre, and the same was said to have been grabbed by the respondents, but there was no such land set apart for the cinema theatre in Sy.Nos.283 to 285, therefore, the contention of the applicant is not reliable. It is the case of the respondents, as submitted by them in oral and documentary evidence, that the plots purchased by them were within the extent of 26,700 sq.yards which was originally purchased by the Society from the pattedars, and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are the land grabbers in respect of the application schedule property. 18. In fact, the respondents are able to establish that from the date of purchase of the plots in question they are in uninterrupted possession, having constructed houses after obtaining necessary sanction plan from Malkajgiri Municipality. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Special Court rightly held that the respondents had not grabbed the land in question, but they purchased the plots situated in Sy.Nos.281, 282/1, 287, 288/1 for full consideration being bona fide purchasers. In fact, when the applicant and his relatives sold away plot Nos.214 and 215 in favour of the Respondents Nos.20 and 21 under registered sale deeds dated 17.10.1979, it cannot be said that they are in the illegal possession of the property, as they have also acquired title over the property by adverse possession also as they are in possession from 1980 and the LGC is filed in 1995. 19. However, it is not established by the applicant that the plots & houses in question said to have been in the occupation of the respondents are situated in Sy.Nos.283 to 285 of Neredmet. The survey conducted by the Commissioner is not with reference to any tippons or village map and no such documents were filed before the Special Court, and the survey report is without any aid of any survey stones and other tippons. The Court below rightly rejected to place reliance on the said survey report. 20. The applicant, except examining the Court Commissioner, had not adduced any evidence to establish that the plots in question occupied by the respondents are situated in Sy.Nos.283 to 285 of Neredmet of Malkajgiri. When the land itself was not identified, and more so, when the applicant, his mother, brother and uncle sold away a large extent of 26,700 sq.yards as long back as in December 1979 under Ex.B19 through GPA holder in favour of Radhakrishna Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Neredmet and the said Society converted the land into plots and allotted the same to its members under various sale deeds, it cannot be said that the respondents grabbed the land of the applicant and constructed houses thereon. 21. We are of the opinion that the plots in the occupation of the respondents could not exactly be located by the Commissioner. The survey report of the Commissioner is without any tippons and village map. The Special Court rightly held that the applicant failed to establish that the plots and houses of respondents were in Sy.Nos.283, 284 and 285. As the writ petition itself is dismissed against similarly situated respondents Nos.1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 23, 24 and 27, some of whom seriously contested before the Court below, which resulted in the dismissal of LGC, the applicant is not entitled to a different relief on similarly situated other respondents, as the relief is not severable. In view of the above, we are unable to appreciate any of the contentions of the writ petitioner/applicant. We do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order under judicial review. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Dated: 26.08.2011 Dsr