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 : 579 of 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO : 2892 of 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 579 of 2009 Between: 1 Chimanlal Singhee S/o Late G.Singhee 21-1-824/1 Tolaram Building Patel Market Rikabgunj Hyderabad 2 D.Mangi Devi W/o. M.Devaram Chodary SBH Colony L.B Nagar R.R District 3 M.Devaram S/o. Motiramji Choudary SBH Colony L.B Nagar R.R District 4 Chunni Devi W/o. Dhanna Ram Plot No.167 SBH Colony L.B Nagar R.R District 5 Heera Ram S/o Gheesaramji Plot No.167 Bank Colony II Phase L.B Nagar R.R District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. T.Suresh S/o Late T.Anjaiah H.No.3-4-512/147 Barkatpura Hyderabad 2. Akula Laxman Rao S/o late Chennaiah 16-11-409 Musarambagh Malkapet Hyderabad 3. Ambati Raj Kumar Reddy S/o Late A.Venkat Reddy H.No 9-1-19/52 Langar House Hyderabad 4. Rudra Vikas S/o Late P.Prabhakar 2-3-531/7 D.V. Colony P.G Road Secunderabad 5. T.Shyam Kumar S/o Late T.Anjaiah H.No.3-1-77 Hyderguda(V) R.R District 6. Smt T.Devi W/o. T Shyam Kumar H.No.3-1-77 Hyderguda(V) R.R District 7. G.Sekhar S/o Late Jagannathanam 2-3-531/7 D.V. Colony P.B Colony Secunderabad 8. Ram Manohar Jawar S/o. Shankarlal Jawar 14-4-55 Begum Bazar Hyderbad 9. K.Annapurna D/o.K.Sudarshan Reddy Thirupally(V) Laxmanchand(M) Adilabad District .....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 a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction and quash the order passed in IA No.1031 of 2008 L.G.C. No.53 of 2005 on the file the Special Court under A.P Land Grabbing Prohibition Act dt 30-12-2008 prohibition act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2892 of 2009 Between: 1 Chimanlal Singhee S/o.Late G.B.Singhee R/o.21-1-824/1 Tolaram Building, Patel Market,Rikabgunj, Hyderabad 2 D.Mangi Devi W/o.M.Devaram Choudary R/o.SBH Colony, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District 3 M.Devaram S/o.Motiramji Choudary R/o.SBH Colony, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District 4 Chunni Devi W/o.Dhanna Ram R/o.Plot No.167, SBH Colony, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District 5 Heera Ram S/o.Gheesaramji R/o.Plot No.167, SBH Colony, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 T.Suresh S/o.Late T.Anjaiah R/o.H.No.30-4-512/147 Barkatpura, Hyderabad 2 Akula Laxman Rao S/o.Late Chennaiah R/o.16-11-409, Musarambagh, Malakpet Hyderabad 3 Ambati Raj Kumar Reddy S/o.Late A.Venkat Reddy R/o.H.No.9-1-19/52 Langer House, Hyderabad 4 Rudra Vikas S/o.late R.Prabhkar R/o.2-3-531/7 D.V.colony, P.G.Road, Secunderabad 5 T.Shyam Kumar S/o.Late T.Anjaiah R/o.H.No.3-1-77 Hyderguda village Ranga Reddy District 6 Smt.T.Devi W/o.T.Shyam Kumar R/o.H.No.3-1-77 Hyderguda village Ranga Reddy District 7 G.Sekhar S/o.Late Jagannatham R/o.H.No.2-3-531/7 D.V.Colony, P.B.Colony, Secunderabad 8 Ram Manohar Jawar S/o.Shankarlal Jawar R/o.H.No.14-4-55, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad 9 K.Annapuran D/o.K.Sudershan Reddy R/o.Thirupally village Laxmachand Mandal, Adilabad District .....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 a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction and quash the order dated 30.12.2008 passed in IA.No.1030 of 2008 in LGC.No.53 of 2005 on the file of the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J.) -- Since these two writ petitions are interconnected and parties are also one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. Petitioners herein have filed I.A. Nos.1030 and 1031 of 2008 in L.G.C. No.53 of 2005 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, while I.A. No.1031 of 2008 was filed seeking to re-open the case. I.A. No.1030 of 2008 was filed to direct the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District to localize and demarcate the application schedule land. The Special Court dismissed both the I.As. by separate orders dated 30-12-2008. Aggrieved thereby, these two Writ Petitions are filed. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners herein filed L.G.C. No.53 of 2005 contending that application schedule land, totally admeasuring 2420 square yards, situated in Sy.No.7/A of Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was originally owned and possessed by Mohd.Mazar Altaf, S/o Mohd. Altarfur Rahman and the same was sold to Siddabathuni Nageswari, W/o Siddabathuni Ramakrishna Rao through a General Power of Attorney Holder Rameshchand Agarwal, S/o Tarachand Agarwal vide registered sale deed dated 09-03-1995 bearing Document No.8928 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East. The vendor in the said sale deed has acquired title to the application schedule land from HEH The Nizam and one Turab Ali. Out of the total extent of 2420 square yards, first petitioner herein has purchased an extent of 1020 square yards under registered sale deed dated 17-09-2004 bearing document No.4778 of 2004, the second petitioner herein has purchased an extent of 292 square yards under registered sale deed dated 10.04.1996 vide Document No.885 of 1996, third petitioner herein has purchased an extent of 311.11 square yards in Sy.No.7/A under registered sale deed dated 17-01-1996 vide Document No.131 of 1996, the fourth petitioner herein has purchased an extent of 354.66 square yards in Sy.No.7/A under registered sale deed dated 16.02.1996 vide Document No.797 of 1996 and the fifth petitioner herein has purchased an extent of 342.22 square yards in Sy.No.7/A from Siddabathuni Nageswari under registered sale deed dated 10.01.1996 vide Document No.101 of 1996 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Saroornagar. Thus, the total extent of land purchased by the petitioners herein put together is 2320 square yards and the balance 100 square yards was left towards internal passages. Thus, they are the owners of the application schedule property based on the registered sale deeds executed in their favour. While the petitioners are claiming title to the application schedule land in respect of Sy.No.7/A, respondents claim title in respect of Sy.No.7/C, which is a non-existent land. The dispute between the petitioners and respondents is a question of fact. Hence, they seek to declare that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 2420 square yards in Sy.No.7/A of Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that the respondents herein are land grabbers of the application schedule land and they have no right, title or entitlement to the application schedule land. The respondents herein filed the counter-affidavit contesting the matter. In the counter-affidavit they have stated that the land bearing Sy.No.7 totally admeasuring Ac.133.04 guntas originally belonged to HEH The Nizam and it was his private estate. The entire extent of land in Sy.No.7 was conveyed in favour of three persons viz., V.Basava Raju, V.Papa Raju and V.Laxmi Narsimha Rao by the HEH The Nizam, after obtaining the required permission under Section 47 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The land purchased by V.Laxmi Narsimha Rao was laid out into the plots and the plots were conveyed to various purchasers. The plots facing the national Highway i.e., Plot Nos.1 to 10 were conveyed by V.Laxmi Narsimha Rao to various purchasers in the year 1978 through registered sale deeds. Mr.V.Laxmi Narsimha Rao conveyed the Plot No.8 in favour of P.Rajaiah, plot No.9 in faovur of P.Laxminarayana and plot No.10 in favour of P.Prakash through registered sale deeds. After the death of P.Rajaiah, the plot No.8 was devolved upon his two sons P.Laxminarayana and P.Prakash. They have effected partition of said plot into two halves through a registered deed of partition bearing Document No.539/1993 dated 17-02-1993 and after the death of P.Laxminarayana on 05-07-2003, the plot No.9 was devolved upon his wife through a testate succession under the registered will deed dated 23-06-2003. The half share out of Plot No.8 of P.Laxminarayana was devolved upon his heirs i.e., widow and five children. The respondents have purchased the Plot Nos.8, 9 and 10 from P.Prakash and his family members and all the legal heirs of P.Laxminarayana through registered sale deeds. Thus, the respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the Plot Nos.8, 9 and 10 which are part and parcel of property conveyed by HEH The Nizam in favour of V.Laxmi Narsimha Rao, which is described as Sy.No.7/C, in the pahanies and they are not claiming the land in Sy.No.7/A of Saroornagar Mandal. When Mohd. Mazar Altaf and his so called GPA Holder Rameshchand Agarwal made attempts to interfere with the possession of the predecessors-in-title of the respondents, predecessors-in-title of the respondents along with other adjoining plot owners were constrained to initiate proceedings before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in L.G.C. No.21 of 1993. The Special Court has taken cognizance and appointed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District as Commissioner to find out whether the plots being claimed by the applicants in the said case are part of the land conveyed to V.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao or not. Pending the L.G.C. interim injunction was granted restraining the Mohd.Mazar Altaf and his G.P.A. Holder Rameshchand Agarwal from alienating, transferring, encumbering the property. Mohd. Mazar Altaf filed counter in L.G.C. No.21 of 1993 opposing the case. The Assistant Director, who was appointed as Commissioner, submitted a report that plots claimed by the applicants in the said L.G.C. are part and parcel of the property conveyed to V.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao. It is further stated that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court that the Special Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the case involving “Attempt to Grab”, L.G.C. No.21 of 1993 was dismissed and later the Writ Petition filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents was also dismissed. It is further stated that after necessary permission from HUDA, when the respondents started constructions in the application schedule land, a notice dated 04-07-2005 was issued by the HUDA directing the respondents to stop construction, in view of the representation by the first petitioner herein claiming that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.7/A of Saroornagar village. The said notice was questioned by the respondents in W.P. No.15070 of 2005 and by order dated 13-07-2005 passed in W.P. M.P. No.19160 of 2005, the Hon’ble High Court granted interim suspension of impugned notice and the said writ petition is pending. It is averred that the property in which the respondents are raising constructions is part of Sy.No.7/C and not Sy.No.7/A of pahani and there is no sub-division of Survey No.7 in survey records and for the identity sake the land in Sy.No.7 is described as 7/A, 7/B, 7/C and 7/D in the pahanies. Hence, the respondents seek to dismiss the L.G.C. After examining of the witnesses and marking of the documents in L.G.C., the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.1031 of 2008 to reopen the case, while I.A. No.1030 of 2008 was filed to direct the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District to localize and demarcate the application schedule land. The learned Special Court dismissed the I.A. No.1031 of 2008 placing reliance on Ex.B-27 report and the deposition of R.W.2, who is the former Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, R.R. District, appointed in L.G.C. No.21 of 1993. I.A. No.1030 of 2008 was dismissed for the same reasons given in I.A.No.1031 of 2008. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the Special Court failed to notice that while the petitioners are claiming that the application schedule land is located in Sy.No.7/A of Saroornagar Mandal, the respondents are claiming that the application schedule land is located in Sy.No.7/C of Saroornagar Mandal and to resolve the said controversy, it is essential to appoint the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, as a Commissioner to localize and demarcate the application schedule land admeasuring 2420 square yards in the boundaries as given in the application correlating them with the sale deeds marked as Exs.A1 to A5 and the sale deeds that are marked for the respondents as Exs.B9 to B20. He further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if surveyor is appointed, as it is only identification and demarcation of the plots with reference to sale deeds. He also filed the relevant pahanies, which indicate that HEH The Nizam is the pattedar in Sy.No.7/A. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not allowing the applications merely placing reliance on the earlier report filed by the Assistant Director in L.G. C. No. 21 of 1993, marked as Ex.B27 and the deposition of the Surveyor, who was examined as R.W.2. In the said report, he has stated that there is no sub-divisions, so, in the absence of any demarcation and localization of the application schedule property, it is difficult to come to conclusion whether it is located in Sy.No.7/A as claimed by the petitioners or in Sy.No7/C as claimed by the respondents. He further contended that though there is delay on the part of the petitioners to approach the Court, but for that reason the petitioners should not be made to suffer. On the other hand, Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the L.G.C. is pending since 2005 and earlier the Special Court has exercised it’s jurisdiction rightly and rejected the applications on the ground that earlier Assistant Director was appointed as a surveyor and he after completing the survey has filed the report, which is trustworthy. At this belated stage, the case cannot be reopened for the reason that the Special Court has already exercised it’s jurisdiction judiciously and also for the reason that no objections have been filed by the petitioners to the report of the Commissioner, leaving apart the fact that the Assistant Director, was examined as R.W.2. The petitioners having been lost their property in the National Highway, now they cannon not claim the property of the respondents. Applications filed by the petitioners rightly stand dismissed on two grounds viz., unnecessary and there is no sub-divisions as per revenue records and hence the petitioners have no case at all. The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error in not appointing the surveyor to resolve the controversy about the location of the application schedule land? At the outset, the controversy whether the petition schedule property is located in Sy. No.7/A, as claimed by the petitioners, or it is located in Sy.No.7/C, as claimed by the respondents, has to resolved once for all, more particularly, in view of the earlier report disclosing that there are no sub-divisions. Therefore, the Special Court should have exercised it’s discretion by allowing the applications by appointing a surveyor to localize and demarcate the plots with reference to the sale deeds and also the boundaries whether the application schedule property is located in Sy.No.7/A or in Sy.No.7/C. As mentioned above, both the parties are claiming their respective land as in Sy.No.7/A and in Sy.No.7/C. The Special Court rejected the applications of the petitioners on the ground that the report marked as Ex.B-27 is sufficient to identify the properties in question. However, it is to be noticed that Ex.B27 was with reference to 1114 square yards only and even if such report is accepted, location of Sy.No.7/A and 7/C therein cannot be established by the said report. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that the Special Court has committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the application. In the circumstances, both the writ petitions are allowed. However, as the petitioners moved the applications belatedly, they are imposed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs in both the Writ Petitions. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J. 10th June, 2009. Note : Issue C.C. in two days. B/O skmr