IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23913 & 25250 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION No.23913 OF 2004 B e t w e e n: Smt. Prabha Devi. - - - Petitioner. A n d 1. The Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, Having its office at BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2. Smt. G. Yeshoda Bai. 3. Kuppu Swamy. 4. K.K. Niranjan. 5. Smt. G. Suryakala. - - - Respondents. WRIT PETITION No.25250 OF 2004 B e t w e e n: Ms. G. Suryakala. - - - Petitioner. A n d 1. Smt. G. Yeshoda Bai. 2. Smt. Prabha Devi. 3. Mr. Kuppu Swamy. 4. K.K. Niranjan. 5. The Registrar, The Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, Having its office at BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.23913 & 25250 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) These two writ petitions are directed against the order passed in L.G.C. No.68 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, “the Special Court”), dated 29-09-2004. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.23913 of 2004 is the first respondent and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.25250 of 2004 is the fourth respondent in L.G.C. No.68 of 1998. 2) Heard both sides. 3) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 4) The facts which arose for filing the Land Grabbing Case are as follows : Smt. G. Yeshoda Bai the applicant in L.G.C. No.68 of 1998 purchased the application scheduled property admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards from one Prem Gopal Sainachar its absolute owner and possessor on 25-05-1993 under a registered sale deed and ever since, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. She demolished thatched roof house therein in the month of May, 1994 and also dumped construction material in order to construct R.C.C. roof house. When the foundation work was going on, the third respondent K.K. Niranjan therein tried to interfere with the work claiming to be the absolute owner of the application schedule property. Therefore, the applicant filed O.S. No.321 of 1994 on 07-06-1994 and also filed I.A. No.897 of 1994 and obtained temporary injunction on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif Magistrate, East and North, Ranga Reddy District. Ultimately, she got a decree in the suit as prayed for. Further, the president and members of Sri Venkateswara Mahila Mandali (for short, ‘the Mahila Mandali’), Alwal, first respondent therein claiming to be the owner of the property also dumped bricks and sand with an intention to raise compound wall. Therefore, the applicant filed a complaint before the Alwal P.S. to take necessary action, but it was vain. The fourth respondent obtained temporary injunction against the first respondent in respect of the property on the file of the Court of District Munsif, East and North, Ranga Reddy District and has been trying to grab the property. Further, the first respondent under the guise of Janma Bhoomi Programme dispossessed the applicant on 02-10-1997 from the property and raised compound wall. Further, the second respondent who constructed a house adjacent to her plot towards western side encroached nearly 40 feet of the schedule property of the applicant, whereas, the third respondent with the help of the fourth respondent under the guise of temporary injunction order encroached the rest of the land of the applicant. 5) On the other hand, the claim of the first respondent in her counter is that the Mahila Mandali was allotted 750 Sq. Yards of gram panchayat site by the then Sarpanch of the village concerned for public purpose in the year 1964 and two rooms were constructed therein in the year 1974 and ever since she has been in the possession of the property and the pleas taken by the applicant are false. 6) The respondents Nos.2 and 3 did not choose to participate in the proceedings. Further, the fourth respondent in her counter filed claimed that she purchased the schedule land under an agreement sale executed on 21-09-1984 and also obtained the corresponding registered sale deed executed on 30-07-1994. It is also claimed by her that she purchased 170 Sq. Yards of site with house bearing No.9- 64/B in plot No.B and Survey No.177 inclusive of the application schedule property. Further, it is pleaded that she filed O.S. No.610 of 1997 and obtained status-quo order in I.A. No.3060 of 1997, on 01-10- 1997 as illegally the Mahila Mandali tried to interfere with her property. 7) Further, the Land Grabbing Court framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant has title to the application schedule property.? 2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding? 3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? 4) Whether, in case of her success, the applicant is entitled to the compensation and profits as claimed? 5) To what relief? 8) On behalf of the applicant, she got examined herself as PW.1 and also got examined a resident of Alwal, P.V. Ramana Murthy as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On the other hand, the fourth respondent G. Suryakala got examined herself as RW.1, General Secretary of the Mahila Mandali got examined as RW.2 and the second respondent got examined himself as RW.3. Further, on behalf of the respondents Exs.B-1 to B-18 were marked. Further a Commissioner was appointed to visit the property and file his report and plan and accordingly he complied with the directions. 9) Taking the material available on record into consideration, the Land Grabbing Court upheld the claim of the applicant and rejected the claim of the respondent Nos.1 and 4. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 and 4 have preferred these writ petitions respectively. 10) In order to dispose of these two Writ Petitions, the following points are to be considered : 1) Whether the applicant placed sufficient evidence to the effect that she happened to be the title holder of the property and accordingly the respondents are to be declared as land grabbers of the property? 2) Whether the respondent Nos.1 and 4 placed sufficient evidence to uphold the claim of the ownership and possession of the property? 3) Whether the Special Court considered the matter properly and arrived at the correct conclusions? 4) Whether the order passed by the Special Court is sustainable or not? 11) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that sufficient evidence was placed before the Special Court to uphold the claim of the first respondent but the Special Court failed to appreciate the matter properly. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent placed good oral and documentary evidence in order to uphold her claim and the Special Court dismissed the claim of the fourth respondent on trivial grounds and further the report of the Commissioner is somewhat different from the claim of the applicant with regard to the identity of the property. Further though the commissioner gave different dimensions of the property and the applicant failed to establish her claim the Special Court basing upon insignificant particulars passed wrong order. 12) POINTNo.2: In respect of the claim of the first respondent that the gram panchayat allotted 750 Sq. Yards of land to the Mahila Mandali for public purpose, no documentary evidence is adduced before the Special Court and RW.2 examined in that behalf gave two different versions one in her chief-examination to the effect that one Raja Kishan Prasad donated land to an extent of 300 Sq. Yards to the Mahila Mandali and the other, in her cross examination to the effect that the said Raja Kishan Prasad donated an extent of 400 Sq. Yards of land to the first respondent. In the absence of any documentary evidence of title and possession in favour of the first respondent in respect of the application schedule property, it is to be held that her claim is not proved. It is significant that the first respondent is not denying the claim of the applicant that she has been in the occupation a part of the schedule property. 13) Coming to the claim of the fourth respondent (RW.1) who deposed in accordance with the pleas taken in her counter which was corroborated by RW.3, Ex.B-1 which is registered sale deed dated 30- 07-1994 between her and her vendor i.e. Prem Gopal Sainachar evidences that she purchased therein a part of house bearing No.9- 64/B in Plot No.B and survey No.177 admeasuring 170 Sq. Yards or 142.12 Sq. meters situated at temle Alwal, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within the following boundaries : North : Part of House No.9-64/B, South : Mahila Mandali, East : Road, West : Neighbour’s house, whereas the property scheduled in the application and also Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 25-02-1993 between the applicant and his vendor i.e. Prem Gopal Sainachar is H. No.9-62/3 in 100 Sq. Yards of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District , within following boundaries : North & South : Neighbour’s land, East : 30 feet road, West : Neighbour’s house. Further, In fact the remaining documents got marked by the fourth respondent are not pertaining to the schedule property. Therefore, the property claimed by the applicant and the property claimed by the fourth respondent are different. Further, the corresponding agreement of sale was not produced before the Special Court or before this Court by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the very claim of the fourth respondent in respect of her title and possession of the application schedule property is to be dismissed. It is to be emphasized here that there is no specific denial of the claim of the applicant that the fourth respondent and the second respondent have been in possession of a part of the application schedule property as claimed by the applicant which therefore is to be termed as not legal. 14) Point No.1: With regard to the claim of the applicant it is very pertinent to note here that Ex.A-1 sale deed was executed by the vendor therein by 25-02-1993 itself. Further, whereas the applicant as PW.1 deposed as per his claim and PW.2 corroborated him nothing was elicited from them, which is against their claim. In fact the report of the Commissioner lends lot of support to the claim of the applicant subject to some minor irregularities. In fact the report of the Commissioner provides that he visited the application schedule property as directed by the Special Court and took necessary physical measurements and identified the property and accordingly prepared his report and rough sketch marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 and the application schedule property tallies with the actual site there and it also discloses that the measurements of the property of the applicant happened to be 36’ x 25’ feet. Indeed as per his report and plan the property is within the following boundaries : North & South : Venkateswara Mahila Mandali, East : 30 feet road, West : Neighbour’s house No.9-62/2. 15) Before the Special Court objections were filed on behalf of the first respondent on the ground that the boundaries given in the application and the report and plan of the Commissioner do not tally with each other and therefore the claim of the applicant should not be accepted. But, on the examination of the boundaries given in the application and also the boundaries given by the Commissioner for the schedule property, we do not find any discrepancies in reality. Further, while executing Ex.A-1 sale deed tentative measurements of the property might have been given whereas in view of the report of the Commissioner that he actually measured the property, it is to be taken that the actual measurements of the property happened to be 36’ x 25’ feet. This irregularity is not a major one to take it seriously. 16) Therefore, the claim of the applicant that he purchased the property from a true owner and accordingly he enjoyed the property till it was disposed of by the respondents is established. Further, for the foregoing reasons rightly it is to be held that the respondents happened to be land grabbers of the property and they are to be vacated from the application schedule property. 17. POINT No.4: The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, considered various details very elaborately and effectively and arrived at correct conclusions and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court. In the result, the two writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE: 25-01-2011. Dsh.