THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Writ Petition No. 7962 OF 2002 DT.24.8.2011 Between: Smt Ghousia Begum … Petitioner And The State of A P, rep by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Asif Nagar and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader Counsel for respondents 2 to 8 : Counsel for respondent no.9: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Writ Petition No. 7962 OF 2002 ORDER: ( Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) ThPe present writ petition is filed questioning the judgment dated 20.3.2002 in L.G.C No. 69 of 1998 and orders passed in I.A. Nos. 226, 227 of 2002 and 292 of 2001 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short referred as the Special Court). The L.G.C. was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner herein got impleaded herself as the respondent no.8 by orders dated 18.10.2000 in I.A. No. 615 of 2000. The writ petition as against the respondents 2 to 8 was dismissed for default by this Court by orders dated 18.4.2011 for non compliance of the office objections for payment of batta due and furnishing correct addresses of the respondents 2 to 8. Though the writ petition was dismissed for default as against the respondents 2 to 8, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the Special Court, the first respondent herein/State of Andhra Pradesh alone contested the matter along with the writ petitioner herein. It is thus submitted that the controversy is in between the writ petitioner and the first respondent/State of Andhra Pradesh and the writ petition can be disposed of by hearing the writ petitioner and the first respondent alone. The first respondent herein/State of Andhra Pradesh, filed the L.G.C. No. 69 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court, in which it is contended that the Government is the absolute owner of the application schedule property situated in Survey Nos. 326, 327/1 and 327/2 correlates with T.S. No. 24/2, Ward No. 21, Block-D of Gudimalkapur village and it is surplus land and the Government took possession of the same on 11.5.1984 vide proceedings No. B1/1808/76, B1/1809/76, B1/113/83 dated 27.4.1984. That the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities declared an extent of 8209.80 sq mts as surplus land and after excluding the structures to an extent of 1040 sq mts, the vacant land corresponding vacant land was arrived at 7169.80 sq mts and the respondents therein purchased the same surplus land and constructed a compound wall, hence prayed to declare the respondents therein as land grabbers, evict them from the application schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession to the Government/applicant and to award compensation etc. The case of the writ petitioner, who was impleaded before the Special Court as respondent no.8, is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No. 12-2-727/10 admeasuring 178 sq yards situated at Rethibowli, Mehindipatnam, Hyderabad having purchased the same vide registered sale deed No.1304/97 dated 31.7.1997 from Smt Nazimunnisa Begum. The vendor of the petitioner i.e., Smt Nazimunnisa Begum purchased the said property vide registered sale deed No. 2326 of 1998 dated 18.4.1988 (marked as Ex.B.1) from Smt Iftakarunnisa Begum. A perusal of Ex.B.1/sale deed dated 18.4.1988 would disclose that it does not contain any Survey Number or Town Survey Number and it is not in dispute that the application schedule property has got both Survey Number and Town Survey Number. It also does not disclose as to how Smt Iftequarunnisa Begum, acquired the said property. It is not in dispute that the Government had taken possession of the vacant land/application schedule property situated in Survey Nos. 326, 327/1 and 327/2 correlates with T.S. No. 24/2, Ward No. 21, Block-D of Gudimalkapur village and that same is surplus land and the Government took possession of the same on 11.5.1984 vide proceedings No. B1/1808/76, B1/1809/76, B1/113/83 dated 27.4.1984. Out of the said vacant land, it is the case of the Government/first respondent herein that an extent of 281 sq mts was grabbed by the respondents 1 to 7 before the Special Court and subsequently the writ petitioner got impleaded herself in L.G. C No. 69 1998 on the ground that she purchased an extent of 178 sq yards from first respondent therein. The case of the writ petitioner herein before the Special Court in her counter affidavit is that the Government has falsely alleged that the respondents have encroached 281 sq.mts of land and the vendor of the respondent no.8/petitioner herein, much prior to the commencement of Ceiling Act, made constructions, therefore it cannot be said that the first respondent in LGC i.e., Najamunnisa Begum encroached an extent of 110.04 sq mts and the second respondent i.e., Gulam Rasool encroached 169.07 sq mts. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no encroachment as alleged by the Government and the land purchased by her is neither surplus nor vacant. But, she failed to adduce any evidence to the effect that the land purchased by her is not forming part of the surplus land taken over by the Government. As the petitioner herein failed to establish that the land purchased by her under Ex.B.1 is part and parcel of retainable land and not form part of surplus land, it can safely be held that the petitioner failed to prove and establish her right and title over the property. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in fact the Land Grabbing Case was filed pursuant to the orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in Proceedings No. B1/1808/76, 1809/76 and 113/83 dated 27.4.1984 and the said orders have been revised by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.B1/438/99, B1/1808 & 1809/76 and B1/113/83 dated 4.10.2000, where under, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling , Hyderabad held that Sri Hameed Hussain and Smt Afzal Begum are entitled to 1000 Sq mts clear vacant land under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, therefore they hold 7036.66 sq mts in excess of the ceiling limit. Though the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad in terms of the orders passed in Proceedings No. B1/1808/76, 1809/76 and 113/83 dated 27.4.1984 determined an extent of 7169.80 sq mts as surplus land, which was subsequently revised vide proceedings No.B1/438/99, B1/1808 & 1809/76 and B1/113/83 dated 4.10.2000 and determined as 7036.66, it makes to difference insofar as the petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as, she has utterly failed to establish by any evidence that the land purchased by her is not part and parcel of the surplus land, therefore, in any event, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Special Court has rightly held that practically, there is no evidence that the respondents therein have got any right, title to the application schedule property and on the other hand the applicant/State of A.P., proved and established its title over the application schedule property. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Special Court in LGC No.69 of 1998 dated 20.3.2002. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J DATE:24.8.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Writ Petition No. 7962 OF 2002 DT.24.8.2011