Writ Petition No. 20213 of 2016 · The High Court · 2025

Order

eer tlott'btc s'1 lusttLr 1n\) Nnrnvn r Atghttty) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

28.03.201.6 in I-.G.O.P.No.779 of 2004 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act 1989- cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district (for short,'Spccial '[r'ibunal')

2. Heard Sli Vedula Srirtivas, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.V.Ramana, learncd counsel for the petitioner a' on record, Iearned Governtlcnt Plcacler for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Shashi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed land grabbing case under Section 7-A(1) and 8 of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1,982 (for short, ' Act, 1982') agairrst the petitioner herein z,ide I..GOP No.719 of 2004 before the Special Tribunal contending that respondcnt No.2 Purchased the plot No.35 admeasuring 200 square yards consisting of one room 2 ltas..i lt t.N_4 / ll' ! :l' 2l)21.1ol2t)16 bearing i\,ltrr.ricipal No.3O-94/72/35 in Sy.Nos.393 and 394 of Konojigucla village, AIwal Municipatity, Matkajgiri Mandal, R.ll.distrrct I.rorn Golla pochaiah under regis.ered sale deed bearing clocunrent No.l488/98, dated 03.06.199g. t.he respondent No.2 solcl thc, said plot to the responclent No.3 o'dc agreement of sale-cum-Ct,ne'ral porver of Attorney bear irrg document No.1764/98, dated i0.07.1998 and respondents 2 and 3 are in possessiorr ol the said Plot.

4. lt is a i erred that thc respondent Nos.2 arr,_l 3 f iled suit in O.S.No.791 ol' I998 on rl.re file of principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North), Ii.ll. district [or pe,rpetual iniunction ; lieging ihat thc petiiioner hcr r:in triecl to dispossess .them from the said plot and interim inju.ctio^ rvas also granted by the trial Crurt zrirle orclers in I.A.No 2401 of 1998 in favour of the responclerrt Nos.2 and 3. llolvever, thL' suit n,as ultitnately dismissed by irn order dated

15.09.2003 r,r'itl'r an observation thai petitioner herein is in possession ol tl-rc suit plot. lt is further averrecl tliat taking advantage ol the dismissal of the suit, petitioner lrerein started digging pits in the suit plot to raise pillars lor permanent I l I I t ,{(,t / d ar'-1.J tt/ t' No )0lll ol )016 structures. Therefore, resPondent Nos 2 and 3 filed LGOP No'719 of2004.

5. Petitioner herein filed counter before the Special Tribunal resisting LGOP and averred that the salc deed under which respondent Nos.2 and 3 are claiming right over the suit plot is' in fact, fabricated and the vendors of respondent Nos 2 and 3 have no right to execute sale deed in their favour' It is further averred that the land in Sy.Nos.393 and 394 was originally belongs to one Khaja Mohinuddin and othels and the same was in possession of several people including Vaniari Anianeyulu @ Aniaiah' which is evident from the pahani for the year 1983-84 and layout was obtained from Granpanchayat, Alwal under permit No 13/1965 d.ated. 26.02.1969 by dividing Sy.Nos'393 and 394 hto different plots and sold them to the staff members of Gandhi llospital in the year 1983-84. Petitioner herein purchased plot No'68 bearing Grampanchayat No.31-3-78 admeasuring 200 square yards from T.Pandu (who is ttre shareholder and family member of Vanjari Anjaneyulu) by registered sale deed da ted \to .,l6.04.1984 and he is in -T 4 AKS./ & LNA.J '1' \o 2A2lJ ol )016 colltinu()us possessiolt of thc schedule property :rom the date of purchasc.

6. It is avelrcd that the Tenancy Certificate under Section 3g_E of A.I']. (lelangar.ra Area) Tenancy and Agricultrral Lands Act, 1950 was issuecl in t.avour of G.pochaiah, who is grandsoir of Currapu Rajaiah, including Anjaneyulu. It is further. averred that after purchase o[ the property, petitioner constnrctecl one room on sou tlt-n.r,st cornt'r af ter demolishing two rooms constructecl on norlh \\,est (onr(,r of thc. property as the roonls wet.e against vasthu.nd the Nlunicipalitv assessed the structur.es and allotted house No.30 92/2, which was changed from Linrr: to tirne and present numLrcl is l-3tl-843, Shivanagar, Khanaiiguda. It is further averreci that petitioller was workilg as Head Nrrrse in Gandhi Hospita I ancl availecl housing loan from ICICI Horre Finance and startecl t ot-rstructior and w,hen it was in final stage, the responcient Nos.2 ancl 3 filed the LGC case. 7 Basing on thc above pleaclings, the Special Tr.ibunal framed the follorvir-rg rssues a? 5 .1/:r I ,{ /.l t / h t'N,))t):llol)ll(

1. Whether the applicants are the lawful on'ners of the petition schedule property ?

2. Whether the respondent is the grabber of the petition schedule land and if so, the applicants are entitled to a decree for eviction directing the respondent to deliver vacant peaceful possession of petition schedule land to the applicants ?

3. Whether ttre applicants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) or any point thereof, on account of wrongful possession of the petition schedule land by the respondent ?

4. Whether the respondent is liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provisions of Land Grabbing Laws ?

5. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim any benefits derived by the rcspondent out of the land grabbed and if so, what shall be the appropriate order ?

6. Whether the respondent was and is in possession of the schedule land since 1984 as lawful purchaser and if so, she can't be termed as a land grabber under the provisions of the Act ?

7. To what relief ?

8. To substantiate the claim before the Special Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.2 was examincd as P.W.1 and one third party was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, petitioner herself was examined as RW.1 and Exs.Bl to 825 were marked I 6 IKS,J & I,N:1 -I W f' \'o 2AzlJ af201( a:' (,otnmissioncr aplrointe(l by the Special Tribunal rvas examined as CW.1 arrd Er.C1 r,r,as marked

9. Initiallr,, tl.re O.l'. filed bv the respondent l.los.2 and 3 was dismissed lrrlr, ;udgrnent dated 30.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, respondcnt No.2 preferred appeal before the Special Court ur.rder A.P [.anc'l Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at 3yderabad uide l-Gz\ No.6 ol 2L)10 and the Appellate Ccttrt uide.udgmer.rt dated

75.12.2011 alltrrved thc appeal and set aside the juclgment dated

30.06.2009 anri rc.rnanclccl thc. matter to the Speciz I lribunal with a tlirection to disfrost ol the same afresh according to law

10. Conscrluent upon the remand, the Special -i.ibunal passed orders clate.rl li) 01 ?012 dirc.cting the Assistant Director, Survey & [-and Rccords to surv(]v and identify the subject plot. Pursuant to the order clatt'rl 19.01.2012, the Assistant Director had appointed Sri Kasinath, Inspector of Survey tn the office of Assistant Director, Survt'v & I-anc1 Records for survey and identification of thc subject plot. Accordingly, the said Inspecto' surveyed the land and subnritted his report dated06.07.2012 (Ex.C1) and as per {he said repolt, tlre Inspector had iclentified the pkrt No.6B, which 1 AKS J & I,NA,J tt'P No 20)lJ ol lt)t6 is in occupation of the petitioner herern and further observed that Door No.1-30-843 corresponding to old No.31-6-68 is in existence The Inspector further observed that on comparison of the applicants layout plan, no plots are tallying though roads are being shown on East and South and plot No.35 in the name of respondent No.2 was not identified/existing. However, the Special Tribunal appreciation of oral and documcntary evidence placed on record as well as the report dated 06.07.2072 submitted by the Inspector, had allowed LAOP and directed the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of three months.

11. The Special Tribunal observed that the sa]e' deed dated 1,6.04.1984 does not specify the plot number and survey number in the schedule mentioned in Ex.B2-sale deed and further observed that with a view to circumvent this position, which is disadvantageous, the petitioner herein got executed Ex.Bl2- rectification deed/ declara tion deed dated 11.11.1994 i.e., after more than ten years to that effect that previously survey numbers T 8 .lt:s.t ,\. 1.N11_J trl'na2A21-rol20l6 are not entered in the sale deed and the sale deed is being re'ctrfied ancl prcscnt plot No.42, which corresponds to old plot No.6B fornrrng part of Sy.No.393 and 394, Kanojiguda village, Alwal Manclal, Secr.rnderabad. The Special Tribunal further observed thai it is not known where from the plot No.42 came into existence suciclenlv and it transformed into plot No.68 and that as per Sectiorr l7(1) of Registration Act, 1908, Ex.B12 requires registration (n.hir:h rr.as marked subiect to objection). It is further observed that though Ex.812 described as c eclar.ation, the contents of clocunrcnts are in thc form of rectifying thc defects of earlier documerrt i.e., Ex.82. 'Iherefore, E;i.812 requires registration sincc tlre same is not registered. Ex.812 cannot rectify the mistakcs of Ex.ll2

12. The Special Iribunal specifically observed that when there is no layout plan of petitioner herein on recor(I, Ex.C1-report cannot be- given wt,ight in favour of petitioner her:in and further observed tl-rat r,''ork memos filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not ansn,ered bv the Commissioner and he failed to identify the plot No.35 or tl-rc Iarrd of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and also 9 AKS.J & 1.t.1-.1 t+ t' No 20213 ol 2016 found fault with the Commissioner's report that he grossly erred in relying on the photocopy of the layout furnished by the counsel for petitioner herein. The Special Tribunal further observed that irr Ex.B6-pahani for the year 1983-84 though it reflected the name of V.Anianeyulu for the land admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.393 and Acs.2.17 guntas in Sy'No'394' does not establish the title of a party over the disputed ProPerty and also observed that Ex.B8-bank finance letter and Ex B10- photos do not establish the title of the petitioner herein over the property and finally, observcd that petitioner herein grabbed the subject plot and taking advantage of dismissal of O S'No'791 of 1998, raised structures on the schedule property belonging to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thus, the 'I ribunal answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent Nos'2 and 3 and directed thepetitionerhereintodelivervacantPossessionoftheschedule property within a period of three rnonths t'lda judgment dated

28.03.2016. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28'03'2076, Present Writ Petition is filed T l0 -r,i t^5_./ & t.tiA.J ul t' L'o 2A213 ol20l6

13. [.c'amer] scnior counsel for the petitioner had contended that petitioncr hereirr purchased the plot No.6g in the year 19g4 t,ide registercd sak: deed dated 16.04.7994 whereas the rt,spontlt'nt \,,.1 nrrr, lraseei the plot no.35 in th,, year 199g oidr Documcnt No 1488/c)ti datecl 03.06.1998. Thus, the document of respondent \o.2 is subsequent to the document of the petitioner herein lt is further crrntended trrat of thrr petitiorrer has 'encror obtainerl Ia'.u t f r.r.r-r AIwal Gramparrchayat airle permil No.13/1965 dated 26.02.1969 ancl hacl sold the p ots to the staff members of (,andhr llospital in thc year 19j3_g4 and the petitioncr Lru rc haseti the pl61 No.68 n,ith structures bearing Grampanchal,at No.3l-6-68 aclmeasuring 200 squzrre years from T.l)andu, n,ho is sha reholdcr and fam ily meml:rer of Vanjari Anjaneyu I u, i,rrlr, regis tcreci sale clecd cla tccl I 6.04. 1()g4. 1,4 Learnecl st:nior counsel furtl-rer contended that suit filed by responderrt Nos.2 ancl 3 in O.S.No.79l of 199g on the file of Prirrcipal Junior Civil ludge (Hast and Norih), R.R.District was t disrnlssecl r,t,itir an observation that petitioner herein is in occupation of the subjcct property, which clearly es,tablished the l1 aKs.J & 1.N.1..1 tY l' No )0213 o[2016 fact that respondent Nos.2 ancl 3 were never in possession of the subject property and in fact, the Commissioner appointed by the Special Tribunal has categorically given report that plot No.35 claimed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not existing in the colony and plot of the petitioner herein is existing, which clearly falsifies the case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the Special Tribunal failed to apprcciate the factual asPects as well as report submitted by the Commissioner in proper perspective and has erroneously allowed the LAOI' filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the irnpugrred judgment is unsustainable

15. Learned senior counsel for petitioner had further contended that as per Section 10 of the Act,7982'. initial burden lies on the applicant, who approaches the Special Court to establish prima facie title to the subject ProPerty. It is settled principle of law that only on satisfactory discharge of initial burden of proving prinn fncie case by the applicant, the burden shifts to the respondents to prove that the land has not been grabbed by them. It is further contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to prove prima fncie title to the subject land. Without I ) 1ts_.t & LtiA.J t' I '.,,2t)2lJ of20t6 there being an1, material to prove the title and exi;tence of subject propertv, thc Slrecial I'ribunal has came to erron,.,r-lus conclusion that petitioner hc.rc,in is the land grabber.

16. Learned senior counsel further contendr:cl that as per Section 2(d) of the Act, .1982, the'land grabber rreans a person r,r,ho commits Iand grabbing for iliegal possessiln of the land. Further, as per Stction 2(e) of the Act, 1982, 'land grabbing, means everv activitl' of grabbtng of any land )r_rr a person or group of persolls rt,ithout any larvful entitlement ; ncl with a view to take illegal possession of such land. IJowever. in the present case, there is no avernrt:nt to that effect in the app it:ation filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Special Tribunal without properly appreciating tl.re purport of Section 2(d) Cr (e) of the Act, 1982, has conre to ('rroneous conclusion anc allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.2 ancl 3.

77. Leamecl senior counsel further contcnderl that Special Tribunal discarclecl the rcport submitted by the Con-rrnissioner on erroneous ancl improper reasons. He further cont,lllded that the Conrmissioncr has considered the layout plan of the year 1969, /l AKS.I & t.t'i,A. / u'l' No )0211n[ 2016 which was reiied upon by the petitioner herein as well as layout prepared in the year 1,992 relied upon by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which does not have any attestation of the Executive Officer. The Commissioner on due survey of land and proper examination, has come to a conclusion tha t piot of petitioner herein is located and identified and whereas, the plot No.35 being claimed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not exist. However, the Special Tribunal erroneously disbelicved the report submitted by the Commissioner, which is pel sc perverse. Learned senior counsel further contended that the impugned judgment 1S confrary to the evidence and material placed on record and the commissioner's report, therefore, same requires interference by this Court and liable to be set aside.

18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 had contended that the Special i ribunal has rightly allowed the LAOP filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It is further contended that petitioner herein failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Special l4 ,IKS.J & LNA,] W P l.'.20213 ol2016 Court and therefore, writ petition is liable to be ,lismissed being devoid of any merit. It is further contended th at Ex.B2 under which petitioner herein purchased the subjcct plot No.68 claimed by him does rrot contain survey numbers and urther, Ex.B12- rectification deed (marked subject to objection) is unregistered. Therefore, the Special Tribunal has rightiy not considered the same as it is not registered document. In view of non- registration, Ex.B12 has no legal force and same cannot be considered to harre rectified the entries in Ex.82 irLsofar as survev number is concerned. Consideration:

79. Perusal of lecord woulcl disclbse that the petitioner herein claimed ownership on the subject property i.e., plot No.68 by virtue ol lcgrsterccl sale deed dated 16.04.L1)84, whereas respondent No.2 is claiming title over the plot No.i35 i.e., subject ploperty by .,,iltue of registered sale deed dated 03.06.1998 and respondent No.3 by virtue of registered GPA-cun-agreement of sale dated 10.07.7998. It is also borne by record trat respondent Nos.2 and 3 earlier filed the suit in O.S.No .797 of 1,998 on the file r5 lKS / 4 LNA..] tt l'N,)h)lJhl2t)ln of Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North) Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunciion against the petitioner herein and the same was dismissed zrrdz judgment dated 15.09.2003 with a specific observation that petitioner herein is in possession of the plot. Having suffered the judgment dated 15.09.2003 in O.S.No.791 of 1,998, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed LAOP No.719 of 2004 alleging that petitioner herein has started digging Pits for construction of pillars taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit. Initially, LAOP No.719 of 2004 was dismissed by the Special Tribunal aide ordcr dated 30.06.2009, however, on appeal being filed by the respondent No.2 ?ide LGA No.6/2010, the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Special Court with a direction to appoint a Commissioner to identify the subject property and dispose of the same afresh according to law'

20. On remand, the Special Cotrt uide order dated 79.01.2072, directed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to survey the land and submit a rePort. Pursuant to the orders of the Special Tribunal dated 79.07.2072, the Assistant Director appointed Sri Kasinath, Inspector of Survey as Commissioner to I I I I 1 l I I I I I i I i I I j i I6 'l/.'-\ / ,l L\.'1 ./ tt l) \t \))11o[N]t( conduct sur\rey thc suLr,ect land and the Inspectc,r submitted his report dated 0b.07.2012, wherein the Commission:r. reported that plot No.(r8 l,elongs kr tl-re petitioner herein is iclentified and whereas thc plot bciorrging to the respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e., plot No.35 is rrot existing in the colony 21 . Perusal ol' the Commissioner's report datod 06.07.20i2 would disclose that the lnspector along with Manrial Surveyor as well as thc parties visited the Sy.Nos.393 and ll!)4 and found resiclentral houses rvert existing in the saicl area. l'he Inspector verified the lavout Plans submitted by both the par.ties and found that lavout plan subnritted by the petitioner herern was dated

26.02.7969, r.vhit lr was approved by.the Flxecutive ()fficer, Alwal Crampanchat'.rt and r,r,hereas the layout subnritted by the responclent Nos.2 and 3 was prepared on 22.03.1992, however, the samc cioe-s rlot cotrtain attestation of the Exe--utive Officer, Alwnl Grampanchavat. The Inspector further ob;e'rved that as per the lavout submittcrl by the petitioner herein, as many as 123 plots were made, and w,hereas as per the layout submittecl by the respondent Nos.2 and j, only 62 plots were ma,1(r. Therefore, 11 AKS,J & I,NA J ul l' Na 2021J ol)016 there is a clear discrepancy in layouts submitted by the petitioner herein and the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Inspecior has indentified the plot No.68 admeasuring 200 square yards 1n which pucca house has been constructed bearing premises No.1-39-843 (new) corresponding to old No.31-6-68 as per registered deed document No.1139/1984 dated 76.041984

22. The Inspector further found that the plots as per layout plans submitted by the petitioner herein and the respondent nos 2 and 3 are not tallied. Ile further observed that plot No.35 being claimed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not be identified and the same does not exist. However, the Special 'l'ribunal has discarded Ex.C1-report submitted by the Commissioner and found that layout plans relied upon by the petitioner has not been placed on record and the Commissioner failed to identify plot No.35 claimed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thus, disbelieved the report submitted by the Commissioner.

23. It is relevant to note that the Commissioner conducted survey in the presence of both the parties and copies of layout plans submitted by both the parties were considered The I I8 /K5,,/ & LNA ,J u i) \o)t)2tJof20t6 Clomnrissioner on clue survcy had identified plot No.6g and furtl-rer observecJ that plot No.35 claimecl by the r,rspondent Nos.2 and 3 cotrlcl not be jdentified and the same is not existing. The Comnrissioner, rr.ho u,as examined as CW.1, was (.ross_examined a t 1e,gth, hou.cver, tl-rere is no trustworthy evirl.nce elicited in the cross-eramina tion.

24. It also rr..levant to note that as per Section 10(1) of the Act, 1982, tlre aprplicant has to prima facie establis"t the title and tlrereaftcr tlrc burden shifts on the respondent that he has not commrtted anv Iand gr.abbing. In the present case, the applicant n,ho is respondcnt No.2 before the Special Court has failed to cstablislr pntrLo.fucie titlc over the subject plot and therefore, the pctitioner ht'relt is not obligated to show that she is not the land grabber. Sc'r-tion 2(d) of ihe Act, 19g2 defines ,land grabber,, w,hich rneans a persort rvho commits land grabbing for taking illegal possc,ssion of the land arrd as per Section 2(e) of the.Act, 1982, 'lancl lirabbing' r-r-reans, activity of grabbing of arry land by a pc'rson n,itlrout anv lawful entitlement and with a view to take ilicgal posscssior-r of such land. \z l9 AKS,./ & l.NA ./ t|I Na.20213 ol X)16

25. It is also relevant to refer io the.judgment of Hon,ble Apex Court in Gouni Satya Reddi v. Government of A.p.r, wherein the Hon ble Apex Court held that land grabber must be aware of the,fact ihat he is eniering into the possession illegaliy and without any lawful entitlement.

26. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of A.p.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person can be called a ,land grabber' for the acts, such as, (a) unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, snatched forcibly, violently or unscrupulously occupies any land, (b) without any lawful entitlement, (c) with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands and subsequent action with respect to subject land. Therefore, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Cour! it is clear that a person can be called as 'Iand grabber' when he/she occupies any land forcibly, illegally, violently without any legal entitlement. 27 . In the present case, petitioner herein claiming title under registered sale deed dated 16.04.1984, whereas the respondeni Nos.2)and 3 are claiming title over plot No.35 oldz registered sale I ' 1zooal u scc :la ' lzoozy : scc zst I 20 ,1K5 J & LNA J IY.P. No l)13 aI20l6 i deed dated 03.06.I998 and the registered Agreem,:nt of Sale-cum- GPA bearing document No.7764/98, dated 10.07. 1998, which are subsequent documents. In the light of report st:bmitted by the Conrmissionc.r tidc Ex.C7, wherein the Commissioner identified the plot belorrging to the petitioner herein with pucca house as well as specific observations in O.S.No.791 of L998, petitioner herein has [',een in continuous occupation of the subject land by virtue of the r-eigistclcd sale deed

28. fherefon:, in the light of above discussiorL and ratio laid down by the Ilon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner tLerein cannot be termecl as land grabber Conclusion

29. ln the light o[ above discussion and legal position, 1n considelecl opinion of this Cour! ihe judgment passed by the Special Tribunal is unsustainabie and requires inte,rference of this Court. Accolclurgly, the Writ Iretition is allc,wed and the judgement dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Special Tribunal in 2t AKS,J & LNA,J tt I' Na )021J o[2016 LGOI' No.719 of 2004 is set aside. There shall be no order as to As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ That Rule Nisi has been made absolutels above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, on this FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ \ /iTRUE COPY// SD/. N. RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I\l_ SECTION'OFFICER To

1. The Spl. Tribunal Under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) A9t' '19B2Cum Districi Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy. 2. One CC to sRl S.V:RA[/ANh, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to SRI MANDHOORI SHASHI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies PSK. GJP \qT HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 I ORDER WP.No.20213 of 2016 tl' ,//o- Y 1(1 6' oA 11 $.[q ilffi o ), *t i t D:SP/\{C' --=:i> ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q.4i.t k*