IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO : 25662 of 1999 Between: 1. Y. Jithin Kumar S/o. Y.Janardhan Rao R/o.Plot No.425/3Rt, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. C.Raghuram S/o.C.Venkatesam R/o.H.No.6-3-663/15/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONERS AND 1. Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbimg (Prohibition) Act Rep. by its Chairman, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Mandal Revenue Officer, Sahaikpet, Previously under Golconda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The District Collector, Hyderabad District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. 5. Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records Hyderabad. 6. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 7. The Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in L.G.C. 145/95 dt.26-2-98 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad and to quash the same as it is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and contrary to the material on record and the same is error apparent on the face of the record and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.25662 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the proceedings dated 26-02-1998 in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995, on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed under Section 7A of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 by the State of A.P., against one K.Rajendra Prasad, was allowed and the said Rajendra Prasad was declared as a land grabber in respect of the application schedule land of 500 sq.mts in Sy.No.403 Part, T.S.No.1, Block ‘H’, Ward No.9 of Shaikpet Village with a direction to the said Rajendra Prasad to vacate the said land and deliver vacant possession thereof. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for respondents are heard. Perused the record. 3. The writ petition is filed by Y.Jithin Kumar, who claims to have purchased the subject land from K.Rajendra Prasad under a registered sale deed dated 21-03-1997 for a consideration of Rs.19 lakhs and one C.Raghuram, who is said to have purchased the said land from the first petitioner in April, 1998. According to the petitioners, Rajendra Prasad, the vendor of the first petitioner did not inform about the pendency of land grabbing case in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 against him in respect of the subject property at the time of the first petitioner’s purchase under the registered sale deed dated 21-03-1997 and subsequently also the first petitioner was not informed by his vendor about the judgment dated 26-02-1998 in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995, wherein the schedule land was declared as Government land and Rajendra Prasad, vendor of the first petitioner, was held to be a land grabber. The first petitioner claims to have sold the schedule land to the second petitioner in April 1998, but neither the date of the alleged sale nor the amount of sale consideration is mentioned in the affidavit filed by the first petitioner in support of the writ petition on his behalf and on behalf of the second petitioner. Admittedly, no sale deed was executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner. According to the petitioners, when the second petitioner was getting ready to obtain a sale deed, they came to know about the judgment in the land grabbing case L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 on the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the document. Though the judgment in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 was delivered on 26-02-1998, no steps were taken either by Rajendra Prasad, the respondent in L.G.C nor the petitioners herein challenged the said judgment for almost one year. It was on 5-2-1999, the present writ petition came to be filed. It is significant to note that though the alleged purchase by the first petitioner from Rajendra Prasad was said to be on 21-03-1997 by which date L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 was pending, the said transaction was not brought to the notice of the land grabbing Court nor any steps taken by Rajendra Prasad to implead the first petitioner nor any application filed by the first petitioner himself to get impleaded in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the first petitioner was not aware of the pendency of L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 by the date of his alleged purchase on 21-03-1997. Even otherwise, the said transaction having admittedly taken place during the pendency of L.G.C.No.145 of 1995, the same is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the said transaction would necessarily be subject to the result of L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 in the present writ petition also, the petitioners have not chosen to implead K.Rajendra Prasad, who is respondent in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995. 4. The question which then arises for consideration is whether the judgment in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 holding that the schedule land is Government land and declaring K.Rajendra Prasad as land grabber is liable to be quashed. 5. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the property. In fact, as seen from the impugned judgment in L.G.C, the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records was examined as a Commissioner and after execution of the warrant, the Deputy Director submitted a report-Ex.C-3 dated 18-09-1997 along with a plan-Ex.C-4. The Commissioner had executed the warrant after giving prior notice and in the presence of both parties on 2-8-1997. The Commissioner had identified the plot and demarcated the same after fixing the boundaries and ascertained that an extent of 250 sq.mts was falling within Plot No.101 of Jubilee Hills Municipality for which the respondent in L.G.C was entitled to. But, the remaining extent of 503 sq.mts was forming part of Government land (erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality) in Sy.No.403 corresponding to T.S.No.1/1/C/1, Block ‘H’, Ward No.9 of Shaikpet village. As seen from the impugned judgment, the respondent therein did not file any objections to the Commissioner’s report, having taken several adjournments for that purpose. Based on the Commissioner’s report and other evidence available on record, the Special Court held that the respondent therein was entitled only for an extent of 250 sq.mts of land, but is in occupation of another extent of 503 sq. mts of adjacent Government land, for which he is not entitled. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, it is stated that in pursuance of the judgment in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued proceedings dated 4-5-1998 authorizing the Deputy Tahasildar of Shaikpet Mandal to take possession of the land and accordingly possession was taken over to the extent of 500 sq.mts in T.S.No.1/1/C/1, Block ‘H’, Ward No.9 duly conducting panchanama on 27-05-1998 and the land is in possession of the Government. 7. The impugned judgment in L.G.C also shows that the Special Court, apart from the Commissioner’s report, had also taken into consideration the documents i.e., Exs.A-1 to A-7 filed by the State in support of their claim. Ex.A-1 is the true extract of the town survey land register (TSLR) in respect of Sy.No.120/P and 403/P and Ex.A-2 is the location sketch. In Ex.A-1, the schedule land is shown as sarkari land. Ex.A-2 shows location of the extent of 500 sq.mts in occupation of respondent in LGC in T.S.No.1, which is correlated to old Sy.Nos.120/P and 403/P. Ex.A- 3 is a gazette notification dated 18-4-1977 issued under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 showing that the land is Government land. Ex.A-4 is errata for Ex.A-3 in respect of ward number. Ex.A-5 is a combined sketch showing the subject property as forming part of 101 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality in Sy.No.1/1 and extending into the adjacent land in T.S.No.1/1/C in Ward No.9 of Shaikpet village. Exs.A-6 and A-7 are the pahanies for 1981-82 and 1986-87 showing that the schedule land is described as sarkari poramboke in Sy.No.403. Exs.A-1 and A-2 correlate to town Sy.No.1 with old Sy.Nos.120/P and 403/P. The physical demarcation of the disputed land on the field after fixing the necessary boundaries by a competent authority, the Deputy Director, who was appointed as Commissioner by the Special Court, coupled with the entries in Exs.A- 1 to A-7 clearly establish the claim of the State that an extent of 500 sq.mts forming part of old Sy.No.403 and correlated to T.S.No.1/1/C/1 was a Government land and the same was grabbed by Rajendra Prasad, who was owner of an adjacent extent of 250 sq.mts, which forms part of Plot No.101 and T.S.No.1/1/D. The respondent in L.G.C sought to rely upon Ex.B-2 a sale deed dated 5-8-1982 under which his wife Jayasudha is said to have purchased the land from one Subash Kumar Lahode and Ex.B-1 a settlement deed dated 29-3-1984 under which Jayasudha is said to have conveyed the property in favour of her husband Rajendra Prasad. Ex.B-3 is a prior title deed dated 10- 10-1970 executed by T.V.Ramachandraiah in faovur of Subash Kumar Lahode and Ex.B-4 is a sale deed dated 12-1-1967 executed by Shamina Begum in favour of T.V.Ramachandraiah. Ex.B-5 is a partition deed dated 29-04-1968 between T.V.Ramachandraiah and Mir Ahmed Ali under which each of them got 6400 sq. yards. Ex.B-6 is the sanctioned lay out plan issued by MCH pursuant to which Rajendra Prasad claims to have constructed a house on the site. The Special Court rightly rejected the claim of the said Rajendra Prasad based in Exs.B-1 and B-2 on the ground that they were executed subsequent to the gazette notification-Ex.A-3 dated 18-04-1977. No objection was also filed for the gazette publication notifying the schedule land as Government land and no suit was also filed within three years after the gazette publication was made. 8. It is significant to note that though Rajendra Prasad claims to be the absolute owner of the disputed land, which according to him, is a private property, he had admittedly filed an application before the Government for regularization of the plot in his possession. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also, it is averred that as the second petitioner was insisting for execution of sale deed, the first petitioner approached the respondent seeking regularization to the extent of 450 sq. yards in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.972 dated 4-12- 1998, but the respondents have not regularized the plot. As seen from the impugned judgment, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent therein also submitted that the respondent approached the Government for regularization and sought a direction from the Special Court to the Government to consider his representation, but the Special Court had refrained from giving any such direction. Thus, the first petitioner and also his vendor Rajendra Prasad have approached the Government seeking regularization of the land which conduct on their part clearly establishes their awareness that it was Government land and encroached upon by them. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is further averred that the first petitioner was even prepared to pay the market value to be fixed with reference to the basic value of the land for regularization of the same. If really the land was a private property and was held by the first petitioner as such, the question of his paying the market value for the same, does not arise. The plea of the petitioner that for purchasing peace they approached the respondent seeking regularization of the land, though it was a private property, is untenable and the same cannot be countenanced. It is obvious that they sought regularization being aware that it was a Government land and, in fact, the evidence on record placed before the Special Court also establish that it was Government land. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is averred that out of the total extent of 896 sq. yards, an extent of 226 sq.yards was falling in Plot No.1 of Jubilee Hills Municipality and the remaining extent of 670 sq.yards was falling in T.S.No.1/1/C, Ward ‘H’ which is a Government land and the said plea had been duly established before the Special Court, after a full-fledged trial. The impugned judgment of the Special Court does not suffer from any infirmities, factual or legal, warranting interference with the finding recorded therein to the effect that the respondent therein K.Rajendra Prasad was a land grabber in respect of the subject land. 9. It is not disputed that previously the petitioner filed W.P.No.2552 of 1999 on 9-2-1999 seeking a writ of Mandamus seeking regularization. By then, the impugned judgment in L.G.C.No.145 of 1995 was already pronounced on 26-02-1998 and the petitioner was aware of the same. However, the petitioners have not chosen to assail the judgment passed by the Special Court declaring that the subject land is Government land and holding that the respondent therein Rajendra Prasad was land grabber. They merely sought a direction to the Government for regularization of the land. It was nearly 10 months later that the present writ petition was filed on 3- 12-1999 assailing the judgment of the Special Court and without making any reference to filing of an earlier writ petition. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the present writ petition is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC also. In fact, the averments made in the affidavits filed in both the writ petitions are one and the same and the date of the affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition i.e., 5-2-1999 was corrected as 25-11-1999 and filed in support of the present writ petition. 10. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated supra, it is held that the impugned judgment of the Special Court which is based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and holding that the subject land was Government land and the respondent therein K.Rajendra Prasad was land grabber, is not liable to be interfered with and the petitioners herein are not entitled for the relief prayed for in the present writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd January, 2009 Lrkm. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}