IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8643 of 2008 Between: 1 Kesarolu Swaroopa, W/o. K. Srinivas, R/o. Plot No.19, Malkajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluq, Presently Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Dass S. Mary, W/o.Mr. Peter, R/o. Plot No.19, Malkajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluq, Presently Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Uma Rani, W/o. A. Mallesham, R/o. Plot No.19, Malkajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluq, Presently Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Ms. Mary Soloman, W/o.Mr. M.S.Sanjeeva Rao, Major, R/o. Shekina 51 Railway Colony, Indirapuri, West Maredpally, Secunderabad -26. 2 Kesarolu Vajramma, W/o. Not Known to the Petitioners, R/o. Plot No. 19, Malakajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluq, Presently Malakajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Ratna Prabhakar, W/o. Not Known to the Petitioners, R/o. Plot No. 19, Malakajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluq, Presently Malakajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the Order dated 29-2-2008 in LGC No. 32/2005 passed by the Special Court, A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to evidence on record, perverse and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MRT.N.MRANGA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP No.8643 OF 2008 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records in LGC No.32 of 2005 on the file of Special Court, Hyderabad, constituted under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, and declare the order dated 29-2-2008 passed in LGC No.32 of 2005 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to evidence on record and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the sole applicant in the LGC and the writ petitioners 1 to 3 and respondents 2 and 3 herein are the respondents in the LGC. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the LGC. 4. The applicant filed the LGC against the respondents in respect of the land admeasuring 266 sq. yards situated in Sy. No.844/1 subsequently demarcated as Sy.No.844/23, plot no.19 of Malkajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluq, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for short, ‘the land’. The case of the applicant is that she is the absolute owner of the land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.541/87, dated 30-4-1987 from Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad, for valuable consideration. That she laid foundation for construction of three bed room residential house on 24-4-1989, but she could not complete the construction due to financial crisis. That the applicant while working as a school teacher has been transferred to a far off place and, therefore, she could not stay at the land and complete the construction of the house on the land. That she retired in the month of November, 1996 and with the retirement benefits when she intended to construct the house on the land, she could not do so, as the respondents, taking advantage of her absence in the land have illegally grabbed the land and constructed small rooms within the basement laid by her without any lawful entitlement with a view to knock away the land. That the applicant obtained necessary permission from the Malkajgiri Municipality vide No.G1/2398/87-BA/773/87. It is also stated that in three land grabbing cases being LGC Nos.64, 28 and 230 of 1994, the source of her title was accepted by the Special Court and also confirmed by this Court. Therefore, the applicant sought for a declaration to declare the respondents as land grabbers and order for their eviction and also for awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- per month from 1997 till the date of delivery of possession of the property in question. 5. The matter was contested by respondents 2, 3 and 5 (writ petitioners herein). The case was dismissed as against respondent no.4 and respondent no.1 remained ex-parte. The respondents, in their counter affidavit filed by them stated that they are owners of plot no.19 in Sy. No.844/1, situated at Malkajgiri owning 66 sq. yards of land each bearing H.Nos.17-119/67, 17-119/68 and 17-119/54. It is further stated that the respondents along with 90 others were living there in the huts for the last 30 years since 1975 and the land was notified as slum by the Malkajgiri Municipality in the year 1984. That the respondents and 90 others who are living in that slum have formed a society called “Sri Ramanjeneya Nagar Weaker Section Welfare Society”. It is further stated that the Malkajgiri Municipality has approved the house sites and the authorities concerned have provided them with all the amenities like roads, water, electricity and street lights and house numbers were assigned to their houses and they were assessed for the purpose of property tax. It is further stated that the respondents as on the date of purchase of the land by the applicant i.e. 30-4-1987, they were in possession of the land and the land was declared as slum and the land purchased by the applicant is different from the land of the respondents. That the respondents are residing in the land since 1980 and as such the averment that the applicant has laid the basement for construction of three bed room house in 1989 is false. The respondents denied the allegation that they have illegally encroached the land in the year 1997. 6. Basing on the respective pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property ? 2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicant ? 3. Whether the respondents can be termed as land grabbers within the meaning of Sections 2 (d) and (e) of the Act ? 4. To what relief ? 7. After considering the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, by the impugned order, the Special Court allowed the LGC declaring the applicant as the owner of the land and the respondents as land grabbers. Hence, this writ petition by the respondents who contested the LGC before the Special Court. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners strenuously contended that Special Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners- respondents in the LGC have been in possession of 66 sq. yards of the land each from the year 1980 and the municipality has assigned municipal numbers and the area has been declared as slum area. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the land in possession of the petitioners-respondents in the LGC and the said land claimed by the applicant is different and there is no identification of the land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein-applicant submitted that the applicant to prove her case that she is the owner of the land, marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.A-11 and the writ petitioners could not file any documents to prove their ownership over the land, except stating that they have in possession of the land from the year 1980, and under those circumstances, the Special Court rightly allowed the application and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The applicant in the LGC was examined as PW-1 and she got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners herein RW-1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked. As per the concise statement the land said to have been purchased by the applicant was plot no.19 situated in Sy. No.844/1 subsequently demarcated as Sy.No.844/23 from Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited in the year 1987 after the Government allotted the land and other parts of the land to the Society in the year 1980, by way of GO Ms.No.4968, dated 9-12- 1980. It is stated that total 49 plots were made and allotted to different members of the Society by the Secretary of the Society by way of registered sale deeds in the year 1987. Ex.A-1 is the sale deed of the applicant in respect of the land along with lay out plan and Ex.A-2 is the encumbrance certificate issued on 20-4-2005 for the period from 1-4- 1982 to 19-4-2005 which indicates no further transactions in respect of the land from 1992 to 2005. It has come on record that in connected matters, the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer has categorically stated that land in Sy. No.844/1 is an extent of Ac.330-28 guntas and it is classified as Government land and the said land falls into two different mandals and two districts. Ac.20-26 guntas of land is within the Malkajgiri mandal of Ranga Reddy district and the remaining extent is in Marredpally mandal of Hyderabad district and by the GO Ms.No.4968, dated 9-12-1980, the Government has allotted an extent of Ac.4-09 guntas of land falling in Malkajgiri village in favour of Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited and subsequently Sy.No.844/1 was sub-divided and the extent of Ac.4-09 guntas allotted to Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited was renumbered as Sy.No.844/23 of Malkajgiri village and the remaining extent of Ac.16-17 guntas in Sy.No.844/1 is under the occupation of Weaker Sections Colony of Indira Nehru Nagar in Malkajgiri municipality. It is further borne out from the record that no house site pattas were issued in Sy.No.844/1 except an extent of Ac.4-09 guntas allotted to the Society by the Government by way of GO Ms.No.4968, dated 9-12-1980. 10. The 3rd respondent (2nd petitioner herein) who was examined as RW-1 has categorically stated that she has not filed any documentary proof to establish her title to the land and she does not know in which of the layout her plot falls. The registration certificate relating to Sri Ramanjaneya Nagar Weaker Sections Association does not disclose the survey number of the land covered by the Society under which the respondents are claiming the property rights. RW-2 who was stated to be a member of Malkajgiri Municipal Council stated that the land which has been in possession of the writ petitioners-respondents and others was notified as slum in 1984, but there was no gazette publication declaring the area as slum. The applicant filed adequate proof of her purchase of the land from the Society. It is an admitted fact that the Government allotted an extent of Ac.4-09 guntas of land by way of GO Ms.No.4968, 9-12-1980 in favour of the Society and it is also borne out from the record that the applicant was permitted to use the land for construction by the Malkajgiri municipality in the year 1987 in permit no.G1/2398/87/BA/773/87 and if the land has been in possession of the respondents, as alleged by them, no such permission could have been obtained by the applicant and the applicant has proved, his prima facie title to the land. The possession of the respondents is subsequent to the purchase of the land by the applicant and there is no documentary evidence to show that the respondents are owners of the land, except oral assertion and that they have been in possession of the land from the year 1980. Assessment of the land to the property tax and providing amenities like roads and electricity will not confer any property rights on the respondents. 11. In this view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error to exercise the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Court and the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the writ petitioners- respondents in the LGC are given three months time to vacate the land in question and handover the same to the applicant. No order as to costs. ____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ____________________ Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J Dated: 10-6-2009 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}