HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3961 of 2004 DATED: 19.02.2010 Between: Sabavat Rukman Naik .. Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P. rep. By principal secretary and eight others .. Respondents O R D E R:- The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Memo No.18821/M1/2003 M.A., dated 26.02.2004 issued by the 1st respondent-Government. The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 729 square yards of land in Plot No.77/19 of Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society in Sy.No.102/3 situated in Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad having acquired the same under a Registered Gift Deed dated 07.12.1979 executed by Syed Ahmed Nooruddin, but the same is illegally included in the layout granted in favour of Sri Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society forming part of Plot Nos.308 and 309 of that layout. When a dispute arose, according to the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S. No.1485 of 1992 on the file of VII Assistant Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for permanent injunction. The petitioner states that the 7th respondent-P.Anjani Prabha purchased Plot No.308-A from a member of Sri Venkateshwara Co-operative House Building Society i.e. Sri Palakonda Rayudu (Ex.M.L.A.) through his GPA Holder - P.Rami Reddy, who is the husband of Anjani Prabha, and as a counter blast, Anjani Prabha filed a suit in O.S.No.1686 of 1992 on the file of VII Assistant Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad seeking permanent injunction. Both the suits were clubbed, joint trial was conducted and the trial Court, while decreeing the suit filed by the petitioner, dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.7. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.7 filed two appeals in A.S. No.194 of 1998 and A.S. No.263 of 1998 and the learned Additional Chief Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 14.09.2001, allowed the appeals by reversing the judgments delivered by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Second Appeal Nos.1175 of 2001 and 14 of 2002 before this Court, which are pending. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent-MCH, even without verifying the boundaries of the lands in Sy.No.102/1 and 403/1 of Hakeempet village, Shaikpet Mandal with those of Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 of Hakeempet village, sanctioned layout in favour of Sri Venkateshwara Co-operative House Building Society, which covers the lands in Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3. The 2nd respondent also granted permission to respondent Nos.4 to 6 through Permit No.27/86, dated 26.11.2002 in Sy.No.102/3 of Hakeempet village, for constructing residential building even though the 4th respondent- Society does not have any title or right over the land in Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 of Hakeempet village. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed Revision Petition, and now, it is his grievance is that the 1st respondent-Government, without giving any notice or opportunity either to the petitioner or his counsel, dismissed the Revision Petition, vide its Memo dated 26.02.2004. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The 1st respondent-Government, in its Memo dated 26.02.2004, held to the following effect: “And whereas, Government, after careful examination of the revision petition and remarks/records furnished by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad observed that the main contention of the revision petitioner is that the layout approved in Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 of Hakimpet village, Shaikpet Mandal in favour of Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society is against Law and contrary to the material and thereby the said layout is arbitrary and vitiated due to error of Law. The revision petitioner has also raised the boundary dispute in respect of Sy.Nos.102/1 and 403/1 of Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal with that of Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 and thereby the layout permission cannot be granted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The contention raised by the Revision Petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that he has neither got any title about the boundary dispute adjudicated through a competent court of law nor established the title which will be considered by the Government without any iota of doubt and the documents relied by the applicant may not be examined by the Government specially in view of the disputed questions of facts. In this case, the M.C.H. has taken a stand that the layout in favour of the third respondent i.e. Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society is in accordance with law after perusal of the documents filed by the third respondent and prima-facie case found by it with regard to title and its boundaries. Further as per the contention of the Revision Petitioner, the very scheduled property is subjected to land grabbing and the writ petition which indicates that even according to his contention the Government has got its own claim against the same property and the same is subjudice in the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.25763 of 2001. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioner is untenable and beyond the scope of the revision as the same pertains to the disputed questions of facts and physical possession of the land bounded by its demarcation. In view of the above, the revision petition filed by Sri Sabavar Rukman Naik is hereby dismissed. However, it is open to the revision petitioner to adjudicate the above said cause by the contempt Civil Court if he chooses to avail the said remedy. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.” Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The fact that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was put on notice nor afforded any opportunity of being heard in the Revision Petition is not in dispute. Further, it appears that the 1st respondent- Government filed LGC No.187 of 1997 against the members of Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society. In fact, in the LGC, it was the case of the 1st respondent-Government that the land in question is the Government land and the members of Yamunanagar Cooperative Society are land grabbers, however, the same was dismissed on 28.02.2001. Challenging the same, the 1st respondent-Government filed W.P. No.25763 of 2001, and this Court, by its order dated 28.02.2005, dismissed the writ petition. In fact, during the pendency of the W.P. No.25763 of 2001, the impugned Memo was passed on 26.02.2004. Inasmuch as this matter was subjudice before this Court at that point of time, the 1st respondent-Government could not have observed in its Memo that MCH has taken a stand that layout in favour of Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society is in accordance with law as per the documents filed by the 3rd respondent-Society and prima facie case is found by it with regard to the title and boundaries. As a matter of fact, when there is a dispute of this nature was pending, even the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was supposed to get it verified through proper channel, and if it was not satisfied, it could have directed the parties to approach competent Civil Court for appropriate relief, and restrained in granting layout so far as the disputed land was concerned. Instead of doing that the Government passed the impugned Memo without considering all the aspects of the matter. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that firstly, the impugned order, apart from being cryptic, suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice, and the 1st respondent-Government could not have dealt with the matter which was subjudice before this Court at the relevant point of time, and secondly, the Second Appeals filed by the petitioner in relation to Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 of Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal, were also pending adjudication. Therefore, the impugned Memo is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Memo dated 26.02.2004 issued by the 1st respondent-Government, and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary to Government for deciding the case, in accordance with law, after issuing notices to the parties concerned, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that till the disposal of the Revision Petition, the respondents are directed to maintain Status Quo as on today. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 02.02.2010 bcj