✦ High Court of India · 10 Jun 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Jun 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

10 Jun 2025

Bench

COURT PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

Length

14,262 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure §1 Code of Civil Procedure §15 Code of Civil Procedure §151 Code of Civil Procedure Constitution of India Indian Penal Code Limitation Act 1963 There was no provision under the Limitation Act 1963

Cited in this judgment

(1987) 2 SCC 107

Judgment

2. 3 4 5

6. Shaik Gulam Hussain & another (died per L.Rs., Resps. 2 to 6) ;glj":#ll::,, Begum, Wo Lare Shaik sutam Hussain, Aged 5e years, occ Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business, Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, Occ. Housewife, Resp.Nos. 2 to 6 are R/o H No. r-s?, ruihlti;o-r"dJrliingamparry Mandat, Ranga Reddy District. i ...Respondents/F etitioners/Claimants

7. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lnduskies, At Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.

8. The District collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 9. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd., (APllC), tlep. by its Executive Director, Situated at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

10.Y Jaihind Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged 72yearc, Ccc. Business 1 1 , Y. Pratap Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business,

12.Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate, 't3.K. Rami Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Agriculture, Died per L.R. R-14 '14.K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business,

15. K. Sudhakar Reddy, Sio K.Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ:. Business, Respondents Nos. 10 to 15 are R/o H. No. 8-3-229111D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-45.

16.Shaik Jahangir, (Died ) not necessary (Respondents 7 to 15 are not necessary parties to this petition) ... Respondents/Petitioners -Clai mants/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that in the oircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay operation of the impugned order dt.02-02-2021 in l.A. No. 569 of 2014 in L.A.O.P. No. 143 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senicr Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District, pending main CRP. lA NO: 'f OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1. Shaik Gulam Hussain and Shaik Janagir (died per LRs), 2 Smt, Sakeera Begum, Wo Late Shaik gulam Hussain. Aged 59 years, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Rl/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik guiam Hussain, Aged 32 years, F/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ,J::

6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, R/o H. No. 'l-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 5 AND

1. Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o Late Y. Raji Reddy, 2. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries, At Lakadi-ka-p0001, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4. The Executive Director, APIIC Ltd., Hyderabad 5. Y. Jathind Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged 67 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-22911 /D 1226, Y enkatagiri, Jubilee H ills, Hyderabad. 6. Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Y Raji Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o.H, No. 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

7. Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 I 1 I D 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee H ills, Hyderabad.

8. K. Rami Reddy, (Died per LR) 9. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad. '10.K. SudhakarReddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee H ills, Hyderabad. 'l 1. Shaik Jangir (Died) (Respondent Nos. 2 to 1 1 are not necessary parties) ... Respondents/Respondents No.7 to 16 Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 26th day of march, 2021 passed in C.R.P No. 451 ot 2021 . Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : SRI P SRINIVAS KUMAR * CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 452 OF 2021 Petition under Nlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order daled 0210212021 Passed in IA No.448 of 2015 in tA.No.569 ol 2014 in O.P.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Prin:ipal Senior Civil Judge, R,R.District at L.B Nagar. Between: Sri Y.Pra]ap Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No.105, Nithish Jayabheri Apt's., Sy.Nb.67-lpart. M'a,ihapur, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.G AND 1 2 2 3 4 q 6 7 8 o Shaik Gulam Hussain and Shaik Jahangi( died )per LRs, Smt Sakeera _Begum, W/o Late Qhaik gulam Hussairr Aged 59 years, Rl/o H. No. 1-37. Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally ManCallRanga'Redd'y Distrlct. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 ye rrs, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 1-37 Kothaguda Viltage, Serilingampally Man jal, Ranga Reddy' District Khaja,^S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 yearr;, Occ Business, Rt/o H, No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Seritingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy bistrict. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 yea-s, Occ Business, R/o H. No. '1-37, Kothaguda Viltage, Serilingampally Maridal Ranga Reddy District. [qmeeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilinga-'mpally'l/andal, Ranga Reddy District. rhe Specia, oep,ty co,rect;ffiHI#:Jl':'#.il:j'J,'"''o'"' Hyderabad. The District collector, R.R. Diskict, Hyderabad. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd, (ApllCr Rep. by its Executive Director, Y. Anthi Reddy. S/o !q19 na;i Reddy, Aged Major, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 t1tDt226, Venkatagiri. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

10.Y. Jaihind Reddy. S/o tate Raii Reddy, Aoed 67 vears R/o H. No.8-3- 229 I 1 lD 1226. Ven katag iri, J ubitee Hills. H-yderabad. 1 1. Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Redd 2291 1 101226, Venkatagiri. Jubitee Hi y, Aged Major, R/o H. No. 8-3- lls, Hyderabad

12. K Rami Reddy, (Died per LR) 13.K Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, R/o F. No. 8-3-229t1tDt226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -

14.K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged lvlajor, R./o H. No. 8-3- 229 I 1 1D226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

15. D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major, R/o Musaram bagh, Hyderabad.

16.Shaik Rameeza bee, (Died per LRs)

17. Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, No 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District lB.Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo24213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

19. Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged Major, Rio 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

20. Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 24213, Kolhaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

21. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late langir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 24213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. Diskict

22. Shaik Jangir Bee, (Died per LRs)

23. Shaik Moinuddin, (Died per LRs)

24.Shaik Basheeruddin, W/o Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, No24111116lA, Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R. District ...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents ( i n all lA.s) lA NO: 't OF 2021 Petition under Section 151of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the Common Orders dated 02.02.202'l passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar in l.A.No.44B of 2015, pending disposal of the above CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 BETWEEN: '1. Shaik Gulam Hussain and Shaik Janagir (died per LRs), 2. Smt. Sakeera Begum, Wo Late Shaik gulam Hussain. Aged 59 H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga District. years, R/o Reddy

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, R/o H. No. '1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampatly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, R/o H. No. '1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, R/o H. No. '1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged.34 yea's, R/o. H' No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Drstnct' . ...Petitioners/Rrlspondent Nos.1 to 5 AND

1. Y. Pratap Reddy, S/o late Y Raji Reddy ...RespondenUPetitioner

2. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries, At Lak:rdi-ka-p0001, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabed. 4. A.P.lnduskial Infrastructures Corporation Ltd (APPIC), Rep by its Executive Director,

5. Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o Late Y. Raji Reddy, 6. Y. Jathind Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged 67.years, Ocr;. Business, R/o H ' No. 8-3-22911 /Di226, V enkaldgiri, Jubilee H ills, Hyderabac .

7. Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. ACvocate, R/o H No' 8-3-229 t 1 lO 1226, Venkatagiri, J u bilee Hills, Hyderabad.

8. K. Rami Reddy, (Died Per LR) 9. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged Mqjo1, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hi lls, Hyderabad.

10.K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Maior, Occ. Btrsiness, R/o H No' 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee H ills, Hyderabad.

11.D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major, R/o Musaram bagh, Hyderabad

12.Saik Rameeja Bee ( Died LRs (Respondent Nos. 2 to 1 1 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondents No.7 to 1 6 '13.Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, l7lo2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

14. Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 2-t213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

15.Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged Major, R/o 2'4213'Kolhaguda' Kondapur, R.R. District '16. Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 24213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District '17. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 24213, Kolhaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

18. Shaik Jangir Bee, (Died per LRs)

19. Shaik Moinuddin, (Died per LRs)

20.Shaik Basheeruddin, Wo Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, No24111116lA, Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R. R. District (Respondent Nos.1 1 to 19 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.6 to 24 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 26th day of March, 2021 passed in C.R.P No. 452 of 2021 . Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl LINGAMPELLY RAVTNDER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'t to 6 : SRI P SRINIVAS KUMAR ctvtL REvlslo N PETITION NO:455 OF 2021 Petition under Nlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 0210212021 Passed in 1.A.No.151 of 2015 in lA No.569 ol 2014 in O.P.No.143 ot 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. Between: Sri Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy. Aged 55 years, Occ- Business. Rl./o. Flat No.105, Nithish Jayabheri Apts., Sy.No.67lpar1, Madhapur, Hyderabad Petitioner/Respondent No.6 AND 1 2 Shaik Gulam Hussain & Shaik Janagir (died per L.Rs.) Smt. Sakeera Begum, Wo Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 59 years, Occ Housewife,

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Occ- Business. R./o H.No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

4. Khaia, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, Occ- Business, R/o H. No. i-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal. Ranga Reddy District. 5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years. Occ- Business, R/o H No. 1-37. Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal. Ranga Reddy District. +

6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 yea's, Occ- Housewife, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mardal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/Petitionerstclaimants( in all lAs)

7. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO, lnduskies, At Lakadi-ka-p0001, Hyderabad.

8. The District collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 9. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd, (APllC) Fep. by its Executive . Director, '10.Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major. Rio Et. No. 8-3-2291t,1D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. '1 1.Y. Jaihind Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged 67 years, F/o H. No. 8-3- 229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad. '12.Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, R/o l.l. No. 8-3- 2291 I lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad. '13. K. Rami Reddy (Died per LR), Hyderabad

14. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, R/o H. I'lo. 8-3-229111D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

15. K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o RamiReddy, Aged Major, R/o l- No. B-3- 229 I 1 lD 1226. Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills. Hyderabad.

16.D. Venkat Reddy, Sio Chandra Reddy, Aged Major. R/o Musaram bagh. Hyderabad

17.Shaik Rameeza bee (Died per LRs), Hyderabad

18.Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, r.1o24213. Kothaguda. Kondapur, R.R. District.

19. Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major. Rlo 2-1213. Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

20. Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged'Major, R/o 2 4213. Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District 2'1 Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

22. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

23. Shaik Jangir Bee (Died per LRs), Hyderabad

24.Shaik Moinuddin (Died per LRs), Hyderabad

25.Shaik Basheeruddin, Wo Late Jani tVliya, Aged Major, Rto2-41111161A. Prashanthi Nagar. Kondapur. R.R. District ...Respondents/Respondents/Resp ondents ( in all l.As) i lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the Common Orders dated 02.02.2O21 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar in 1.A.No.151 of 2015, pending disposal of the above CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1. Shaik Gulam Hussain and Shaik Janagir (died per LRs), 2. Smt. Sakeera Begum, W/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain. Aged 59 H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga District. years, R/o Reddy

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict

5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, RJo H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict

6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 5

1. Sri Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Late Ra.ii Reddy, AND

2. rhe speciar Deputy coilector-cum-LAo rndustries Hyderabad. ^ilr1"iJ,-?::J"[etitioner

3. The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd., (APIIC) Rep. by its Executive Director, at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

5. Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major, R/o H. No. 8-3-229111D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

6. Y. Jathind Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged 67 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. B-3-229l1 /D 1226, V enkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

7. Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate, R/o H. No. 8-3-2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee H ills, Hyderabad.

8. K. Rami Reddy, (Died per LR) 9. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, PJo H. No. 8-3-2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee H ills, Hyderabad.

10.K. SudhakarReddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Eiusiness, R/o H. No. I -3 -229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 'l '1 .Venkat Reddy, Sio Chandra Reddy, Aged Major. R/o Mur;aram bagh, Hyderabad

12. Shaik Rameeza bee, (Died per LRs)

13. Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, F to 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

14. Shaik $3!a.er, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rio 2-42t3, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District '15.Shaik Bagq.dqd, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged Major, R/o 2-l2l3,Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

16.Shaik Naze_er, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 24213,Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District 17 Shaik Hameed, Qio Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, No242/3, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

18. Shaik Janglr Bee, (Died per LRs) '19. Shaik Moinuddin, (Died per LRs)

20. Shaik Basheeruddin, W/o Late Jani Miya, Aged Maior, Rlt 2-41111161A, Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R. Disirict. - ...Respondents/Respondents No.6 to l4 Petition under Section 1 51 of CPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 26th day of March, 2021 1>assed in C.R.P No. 455 of 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl LINGAMPELLY RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : SRI P SRINIVAS KI.JMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:458 OF 2021 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia ag,;rieved by the Order daied 0210212021 Passed in l.A.No.151 of 2015 in tA \o.569 of 2014 in O.P.No.'143 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. Between: Y Anthi Reddy, S/o Late Y. Raji Reddy, aged about 78 years, Occ- Agriculture, No 8-3-22911lDl226,Yen(atagiii, NearRoa:d No 10, Jubil6e hitis, Hyde;bad. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.4

1. Shaik Gulam Hussain, and another (died per L.Rs., Resps. 2 to 6) 2 9mt. Sakeera Begurn, Wo Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 59 years, Occ- flousewife, Resp.Nos. 2 to 6 are_R/o H. No. t-32, Kothagruda Viiiage, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Occ- Business, F.esp,\og. 2 to 6 are.RTo H. No. 'l-37, Kothaguda Village, Seritingampaliy Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, Occ- Business, [esp,\oq.2 to 6 are Rl/_o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingamp'ally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, Occ- Business, F:espjryoi 2 to 6 are R/o H..No. '1-37, Kothaguda'Vitlage, Seritingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, Occ- Housewife, F.esp,\ol 2 to 6 are R:/_o H..No. 1-37, Kotha{uda Village,'serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Res pondents/Petitioners/Claimants

7. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries, At Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.

8. The District collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 9. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd.,(APllC), Rep. by its Executive Director, Situated at Basheerbagh. Hyderabad.

10.Y Jaihind Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged 72yearc, Occ- Business 1 1 . Y. Pratap Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major, Occ- Business,

12.Y. Rajiv Reddy, Sio Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ- Advocate, '13.K. Rami Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture, Died per L.R. R-14. '14. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ- Business,

15.K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o K. Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ- Business. Res.pond.ents Nos.'10 to 15 are R/o g.'trto.i-S-ZZO11tDt226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

16.D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major, occ- Business, R/o Musaram bagh, Hyderabad.

17.Shaik Rameeza bee, Wo Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ- Housewife, Died per 1.R., R-18, R-19, R-20, R-21 and R-22.

18.Shaik Chand Pasha, Sio Late Jangir Miya, Agd Major, Clcc- Business,

19.Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ- Eiusiness,

20. Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ- Business,

21. Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ- Business,

22. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ- lJusiness,

23.Shaik Jangir Bee, Wo Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, Occ-Housewife, RR 17- 23 Rlo 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

24. Shaik Moinuddin, S/o Late jani Miya, Aged Major, Occ- Ilusiness, R/o 1- 112191 , Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R. R. Districi .

25. Shaik Basheeruddin, S/o Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, Occ- Business, R/o 2- 41111161A, Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R. District.

26.Shaik Jahangir, S/o. Late Gudu Sab, (Not Necessary Party) ...Respondents/Petitioner-Cla imants-Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1. Shaik Gulam Hussain & another (died per L.Rs., Resps.2 to 6) 2. Smt. Sakeera Begum, W/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, l,ged 59 years, Occ Housewife,

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years Occ. Business, 4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, 5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business, 6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 yea-s, Occ. Housewife, Resp.Nos. 2 to 6 are R:/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Serilirgampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 6 AND

1. Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o Late Y. Raji Reddy, 2. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries, At Lakadi-ka-p0001, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4. The Executive Director, APIIC Ltd., Hyderabad 5. Y. Jathind Reddy, Sio late Raji Reddy, Aged 67 years, Occ. Business, R-/o H No. 8-3-22911/D/226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 6. Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Y Raji Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o lt. No. 8-3-22911 lDl226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. a I 8-3-229t1 tDt226, Venkatagiri, .tuOit#'Xiils, Hyderabad. S/g y, Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate, R/o H. No Z ! ^R_aiiy.fg_OQy, 8. K. Rami Reddy, (Died per LR) its,;9fl ' [i 10 K. Sudhakar Reddv, sio Ram Reddy, Aged Major, occ. Business, R,o H. No. I -3 -2zs t 1 t D t 220, Ve n iitas i i i, j t o i [,'d'rjilrl, H'v'o e ra b a d. occ B u s i n ess, R/o H N o "rJ,i55fr,i:53n#f?,f. Hi?! "'rrt 1'1. D. Venkat Reddv. S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major. R/o Musaram bagh. Hyderabad

12. Shaik Rameeza bee (Died per LRs), Hyderabad " P|fi1:f,[TiH:13i, l'fi h1'8,1?.?J,n 14. Shaik gs[e.e'r, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major. R/o 242t3. Kothaguda, M iva' Ased M alor' Rt o z-42 t 3 Kondapur, R.R. Distrrct.

15. Shalk Baga_d1d, _S/9-lqte jangir Miay, Aged Major, R/o 242t3. Kothaguda. Kondapur, R.R. Distnct '16. Shaik Nazelrr, S/o L-qte jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 242t3, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. Distnct.

17. Shaik Hameed, Q/o Kondapur, R.R. Distnct. -Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 242t3, Kothaguda,

18. Shaik Janoir Bee w/o. Late Jani Miya, occ: Housewife , Rlo. 24213, -oiJtiiji-' Kothagudi, Konoapur, n.R

19. Shaik Moinuddin s/o. LaLe Jani Miya, occ: Business, rro. 1-112191 , Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District.

20.shaik Basheeruddin s/o. Late Jani Miya, occ: Business, Rto.2-41r11t6tA, Prasanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R Dis[. '

21. Shaik Jahangir, S/o. Late Gudu Sab,( not necessary party) (Respondents 2 to 10 and 21 are not necessary parties to this petition) ... Respondents/Respondent Nos.7 to 26 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiition, Ir,e Hign court may ue preiseJ to y99rt9-t!g.interim stay granted on 26th day of Marc-h, 2021 passed in'C.R.p No. 458 of 2021 and irass Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : SRI p SRINIVAS KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:463 OF 2021 Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia a{lgrieved by the Order dated 0210212021 Passed in 1.A.No.447 of 2015 in lA No.569 of 2014 in O.P.No.'143 ot 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principe I Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. Between: Sri Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged 55 years,, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No.105, Nithish Jayabheri Apts., Sy.No.67ftan, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Petitio ner/Respondent No.6 AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I Shaik Gulam Hussain and Another (died per LRs) Smt. Sakeera Begum, Wo Late Shaik gulam Hussain, r\ged 59 years, Occ. House wife, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 yeart;, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, 3cc. Business, R/o H. No. '1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Flanga Reddy District. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years Occ. Business, RJo H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, t{anga Reddy Diskict. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H, No. 1-37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Claimants ( in all lAs) The Special Deputy Collector, -cum-LAO lridustries, At Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. The District collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad. A.P lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd., (APllC) Rep by its Executive Director, 10 Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major, Rr/o ll No.8-3-229111D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. '1 1. Y. Jaihind Reddy, S/o late Raji Redd 2291 1 lDl226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hil y, Aged 67 years, R/o H. No. 8-3- ls, Hyderabad.

12.Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, R/o H. No. 8-3- 229 I 1 I D 1226, Ven katagiri, J u bilee H ills, Hyderabad.

13.K. Rami Reddy, (Died per LR)

14.K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderaba Aged Major, R/o F. No. 8-3-229111D1226, d

15. K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ram RedQy-, Ag.ed. Major', R/o H No B-3- 2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hrlls' HyoeraDao'

16. D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Maior' Rl/o Musaram bagh' Hyderabad.

17.Shaik Rameeza bee, (Died per LRs) 18. Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major' Rlo 24213' kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District'

19. Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya' Aged Major' No 2'4213' Kothaguda' KondaPur, R.R. District.

20.Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late.iangir Miaya, Aged Major' No2-4213' Kothaguda' Kondapur, R.R. District. 21 . Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major' R/o 2-4213' Kothaguda' Kondapur, R.R. District

22. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late iangir Miya, Aged Malor' Rlo 24213' Kothaguda' KondaPur, R.R. District.

23. Shaik Jangir Bee, (Died Per LRs) 24. Shaik Moinuddin, (Died Per LRs) 25. Shaik Basheeruddin, Wo Late Jani1r/liya, Aged Major' R/o 2411111614' t- Fiasnantni Nagar, Kondapur' R R District ..'Respondents/Respondents/Respondents (in all l'As) IA NO: 10F 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of gre petition, it',JHigl-, Court may be pleased to grant -.r.p"nsion irLri. -the i,ir"ip"r stri.i Cirir Jrog", h.i. oittri"t at L.B.Nagar in l.A No.447 of 2015' pending disposal of the above CRP' Orders dited 02.02 2021 passed by -Common oi' tne IA NO: 10F 2022 BETWEEN:

1. Shaik Gulam Hussain & Jahangeer (died per L'Rs ') 2. Smt. Sakeera Begum, W/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain' Aged 59 years' Occ' Housewife,

3.Ghouse,S/oLateShaikGulamHUSSain,Aged3Tyears'occ.Business, 4. Khaja, Sio Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years' Occ Business' 5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain' Aged 32 years' Occ Business' 6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain' Aged 34 vears Occ' Housewife' Reso.Nos. 2 to 6 are nv" n""r,'i6'i:b?,-ioihaduo" seirilingampally Mandal' Ranga ReddY District. l . . . Petitioners/Re spondents No.'l to 5 '1 . Sri Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, AND ...R€,spondenUPetitioner

2. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lnduskies, At Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, R.R. Distnct, Lakdikapool, Hydera:ad. 4. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd., (APllC) Flep. by its Executive Director, at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

5. Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major, R/o H. No 8-3-229111D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

6. Y. Jathind Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged 67 years, Ctcc. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-22911 /D 1226, Y enkatagiri, Jubilee H ills, Hyderabad.

7. Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

8. K. Rami Reddy, (Died per LR) 9. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee H ills, Hyderabad.

10.K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Ven katagiri, Jubilee H ills, Hyderabad. 1'1 . D Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major. R/o Musaram bagh, Hyderabad

12. Shaik Rameeza bee, (Died per LRs)

13. Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 24213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

14.Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R. R. District

15. Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged Major, Rlo',2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

16. Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Rlo 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

17. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 2'.-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District

18. Shaik Jangir Bee, (Died per LRs)

19.Shaik Moinuddin, (Died per LRs)

20.Shaik Basheeruddin, Wo Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, Rlo24111116lA, Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R. District. ... Respondents/Rer;pondents Nos.6 to 24 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 26th day of March, 2021 passed in C.R.P No 463 of 2021 . Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl C RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: SRI P SRINIVAS KUMAR clvlL REVISION PETITION NO: 465 OF 202'l Petition under Anicle 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order daled 0210212021 Passed in 1.A.No.448 ol 2015 in lA No.569 ol 2014 in O.P.No. 143 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. Between: Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o Late Y. Raji Redd Rl o 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, V enkatagiri, Near aged about 78 years, Occ Agriculture, oad No.10, Jublihills, Hyderabad. v, R ...Petitioner/Respondent No.4 AND

2. .)

4. 5

9. Shaik Gulam Hussain and another ( Died per L.Rs., Resps. 2 to 6) Smt. Sakeera Begum, W/o Late Sheik gulam Hussain, Aged 59 years, Occ House wife, Ghouse, S/o Late Sheik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Occ Business, Khaja, S/o Late Sheik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, 4+6Nazeer, S/o Late Sheik gulam Hussain, aged 32 years, Occ Business Fameeda, D/o Late Sheik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, Occ Housewife, Rep. Nos. 2 to 6 are R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda VillageSeringampally Mandel, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Claimants The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries, At Lakadl-ka-pool, Hyderabad The District collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd., (APllC), Rep. by its Executive Director, Situated at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad '10 Y. Jaihind Reddy, S/o Late Raj Reddy, Aged 72 yearc, Occ Business 11 Y. Pratap Reddy, S/o late Raj Reddy, Aged Major, Occ Business, 12 Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ Advocate 13 K. Rami Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Aged Major, OccAgriculture, Died perLR. R-14 14 K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ Business

15.K.Sudhakar Reddy, K Ram Reddy, Major, Occ Business Respondents Nos. 10 to 15 are R/o H. No. 8-3-22911/D1226,Venkalagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

16. D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major, Occ Business, R/o Musaram bagh, Hyderabad

17. Shaik Rameeza bee, Wo Late Jangir Mlya, Aged Major, Occ Housewife, Died per LR., R-18, R-19, R-20, R-21 and R-22.

18.Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Mlya, Agd Major, Ccc Business,

19. Shaik Sabeer, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ Business,

20. Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ []usiness

21. Shalk Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ Business, 22. Shalk Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ Eusiness

23.Shaik Jangir Bee, W/o Late Sant Me, Aged Major, Occ llousewife, RR17-23 Rlo 2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, P.R. District. Died per L.R., R-25. 24. Shalk Moinuddin, S/o Late jani Ms, Aged Major, Occ Bu:;i R/o 1-112191, Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, P.R. District. Died p,:r LRs. R-26 and R- 27

25.Shaik Basheeruddin, W/o Late Jani Miya Aged Major, Occ Business, R/o 2- 4llllldlA,Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R. District

26. Shaik Azam, S/o Moinuddle, Aged 30 Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R. R. ars, Occ Business, Rlo 1-112191 , District

27.Shaik Nizam, S/o Moinuddin, Aged 35 Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R. not necessary parties to this petition R, ars, Occ Business, Rlo 1-112191 , District. (Respondents 7 to 15 are

28. Shaik Jahangir, S/o Late Gulam Sab(died) not necessary ...Respondents/Petitioner-Cla imants-Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1. Shaik Gulam Hussain & Jahangeer (died per L.R.s) 2. 9mt. Sakeera Begum, Wo Late Shaik gulam Hussain, r\ged 59 years, Occ. Housewife,

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, 4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 years, {)cc. Business, 5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business, 6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 yeers, Occ. Housewife, Resp.Nos.2 to 6 are R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda Sdrilirrgampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioners/Rospondents No.1 to 6 '1 . Y. Anthi Reddy, S/o Late Y. Raji Reddy, AND ... RespondenUPetitioner

2. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries, At Lakadi-ka-p0001, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

4. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd., (APllC) Rep. by its Executive . Director, at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

5. Y. Jathind Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged 67 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. B-3-229l1 /D 1226, Y enkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 6. Y Pratap Reddy, S/o Y Raji Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

7. Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate, R/o H. No. 8-3-22911 lDl226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

8. K. Rami Reddy, (Died per LR) 9. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-229 I 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

10. K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No. 8-3-2291 1 lD 1226, Venkatagiri, J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 1'1 . D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major. R/o Musaram bagh. Hyderabad

12. Shaik Rameeza bee (Died per LRs), Hyderabad 'l3.Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, No24213. Kothaguda. Kondapur, R.R. Diskict.

14.Shaik Sabeer, Sio Late Jangir Miya, Aged lilajor. No 2-4213. Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

15.Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged Major, R/o 24213. Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District '16. Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 24213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

17. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, R/o 2-4213, Kolhaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District.

18. Shaik Jarigir Bee Mo. Late Jani Miya, occ: Housewife, No.2-4213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District 't9. Shaik Moinuddin s/o. Late Jani Miya, occ: Business, rlo.1-112191 , Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District.

20.Shaik Basheeruddin s/o. Late Jani Miya, occ: Business, Rlo.2-411111614, Prasanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R. Dist.

21. Shaik Azam, s/o. Moinuddin, occ: Business, rlo. 1-112191 , Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District.

22.Shaik Nizam, s/o. Moinuddin, occ: Business, rlo. 1-112191 , Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District.

23.Shaik Jahangir, S/o. Late Gudu Sab (died) (Respondents 2 to 10 and 23 are not necessary p;rrties to this petition) ... Respondents/Respondent Nos.7 to 28 Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that n the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hig r Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 26th day of March, 2021 passed in C.R.P No. 465 ot 2021. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: SRI P SRINIVAS KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:470 OF 2021 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lrrdia aggrieved by the Order dated 0210212021 Passed in 1.A.No.447 of 2015 n lA No.569 of 2014 in O.P.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. Between: Y. Anthi Reddy, Rlo 8-3-22911|D S/o. Late Y. Raji Reddy, aged abou: 78 years, Occ. Agriculture, 1226, Venkalagiri, Near Road No.'10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad. AND 1 2 Shaik Gulam Hussain and another(died per L.Rs. Resps. 2 to 6) Smt. Sakeera Begum, Wo Late Shaik.gulam Hus:;ain, Aged 59 years, Occ Household, ...Petitioner/Respondent No.4

3. Ghouse, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, 4. Khaja, S/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 35 yerars, Occ. Business, 5. Nazeer, S/o Late Shaik gulam Hussain, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business, 6. Fameeda, D/o Late Shaik Gulam Hussain, Aged 34 years, Occ. Housewife, Resp,Nog 2 to 6 are R/o H. No. 1-37, Kothaguda /illage, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Respond,:nts/Petitioners/Claimants

7. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO lndustries At Lakadi-ka-pool Hyderabad.

8. The District collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 9. A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructures Corporation Ltd, (AFllC) Rep. by its Executive Director, Situated at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

10.Y. Jaihind Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged 72yea.s, Occ. Business

11.Y. Pratap Reddy, S/o late Raji Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business,

12.Y. Rajiv Reddy, S/o Y. Jaihind Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Advocate,

13. K. Rami Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Agriculture, Died per L.R. R-14.

14. K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, '15.K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, . Respondents Nos. 10 to '15 are Rl/o H. No. 8-3-229111D1226, Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

16. D. Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged Major, occ. Business, Rl,/o Musaram bagh, Hyderabad.

17.Shaik Rameeza bee, Wo Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, Died per 1.R., R-18, R-19, R-20, R-21 andR-22.

18.Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o Late Jangir Miya, Agd Major, Occ. Business, '19. Shaik Sabeer, Sio Late Jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ. Business,

20. Shaik Bagadad, S/o Late jangir Miay, Aged Major, Occ. Business, 21 . Shaik Nazeer, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ. Business,

22. Shaik Hameed, S/o Late jangir Miya, Aged Major, Occ. Business,

23. Shalk Jangir Bee, Wo Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, RR17-23 Rlo24213, Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District. Died per L.R., R-25. 24. Shaik Moinuddin, S/o.Late jani Mlya, Aged Mjor,Business, No 1-112191, Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District. Died per L.Rs. R-26 and R- 27.

25. Shaik Basheeruddin, Wo Late Jani Miya, Aged Major, Occ. Business, Rl/o 2- 411111614, Prashanthi Nagar, Kondapur, R.R District.

26. Shaik Azam, S/o Moinuddin, Aged 30 years, Occ. Business, No 1-112191, Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District.

27. Shaik Nizam, S/o Moinuddin, Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, Rlo 1-112191, Kondapur, Weaker Section Colony, R.R. District. (Respondents 7 to 15 are not necessary parties to this petition)

28.Shaik Jahangir, S/o.Late Ghouse Sab(Died) (Not Necessary Party) ...Respondents/Petitioner-Claimants-Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ The Court made the following: COMMON OROER THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.450, 451.452, 455. 458.463. 465 & 470 of2021 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.450 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner - respondent No'6 aggrieved by the order dated02.O2.202 I passed in I.A.No.>69 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 15l of CPC by the leamed Principal Senior Civit Judge, Rangareddy District at l-.B.Nagar, setting aside the dismissal order dated 26.09.2008 and restoring L.A.O.P.No.l43 of 2004.

2. C.R.P.No.45l izoit-" filed by the petitioner - respondent No.4 aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.202 I passed in I.A.\o.569 of 2014 in O.P.No. 143 of 2004 by the leamed Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. C.R.P.No.452 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner '- respondent No.6 aggrieved by the common order dated02.02.2021 passed ir i.A.No.448 of 2015 by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy [)istrict at L.B.Nagar, allorving the petition filed under Section 5 of Li r.ritation Act, 1963, condoning the detay in filing an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for setting aside the abatement order. 2 DT.GRR' J crp_450-2021 & batch

4. C.R.P.No.455 of Z02l is filed by the petitioner - respondent No'6 aggrieved by the common order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the leamed Principal Senior civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.15 I of 2015 under Order XXII Rule 3 for allowing the petition in bringing the iegal representatives of claimant No. I .

5. C.R.P.No.458 of 2OZl is filed by the petitioner - respondent No'4 aggrieved by the order dated 02.02-2021 passed in I'A'No'151 of 2015 in I.A.No.569 of 2014 in o.P.No. l4l of 2004 by the learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

6. C.R.P.No.463 of 2021 is fited by the petitioner - respondent No'6 aggrieved by the common order dated 02.02'2021 passed by the leamed principal Senior civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.447 of 2015 under order XXII Rule I to 3 read with Section l5l of cPC for sening aside the abatement order against claimant No. l.

7. C.R.P.No.465 ol 2021 is filed by the petitioner - respondent No.'1 aggrievedbytheorderdated02.02.202lpassedinI.A.No.448of2015in I.A.No.569 of 2014 in o.P.No.143 of 2004 by the leamed Principal Junior civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. 8'C.R.P.No.470ol2O2|isfiledbythepetitioner-respondentNo.4 aggrieved by rhe order dated 02.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.447 of 2015 in f Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch I.A.No.569 of 2Ol4 in o.P.No.143 of 2OO4 by the leamed I'rincipal Junior civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

9. The i-acts of C.R.P.No.450 of 2021 are taken as ref'erence to all the above C ir il Rcvision Petitions. I 0. The lespondents I to 5 - claimants filed I.A.No.56 ) of 2014 to restore [..A.0.P.No. l4] o1-2004. The respondent No.2 fited an allidavit in support ol the said petition submitting that his father late Gulam I{ussrrin and his uncle late Shrik Jahangir were claimants I and 2 along w'ith others irr L-A O.P.No. 143 of

2004. Ilis father passed away after a prolonged battle rvith cancer on

29.09.201 3. His late uncle Shaik Jahangir predeceased lris late father with nrultipie ailments. Neither his late uncle nor they had any <nowledge about the sub.iect case. His late father could not pl'operly take care o 'the litigation due to his ill-health. A1[ the other legal heirs of his late father also had no knowledge oi' the existence of the above case and other [itigations until their father's death. Irew' da1's befbre the death, his late father told about tle subject litigation. fJou.ever, he could not communicate the entire particulars as to the case number and the Court in which the said litigation was pending as his memory was af'f'ected to some exlent due to his prolonged illness i.e cancer. After the dcmise of his f'ather, he along with his other siblir.rgs tried to enquire about the pending litigations bctbre various forums. Since his late irther was ttnable to 4 Dr.CRR. J crp_450 2021 & batch communicate the entire particulars of thc litigations and also about the counsels on record, it has become very difficult to trace the advocates on record and also the litigations. However, they engaged the present counsel to know the particulars and the status of the litigation. His counsel could able to trace the litigation with great ditlculty by spen<Jing considerable time. His counsel had communicated to them that the case was dismissed for default on 26.09.2008. Immediately, after attaining knowledge of the dismissal, they filed nccessary applications for impleading all the legal heirs o('his late father and also the present application fbr restoration of the said case by setting aside the order of dismissal for def-ault dated 26-09.2008.

11. The respondent No.4 to the said l.A' by name Y'Arrthi Reddy filed counter aft-rdavit contending that the petition filed under order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for restoration of I-AOP was not maintainable T'hc petition was filed on 07.04.2014 seeking to restore LAOP.No.I43 of 2004. which was dismissed on 26.09.2008 i.e. more than 2000 days alter the said dismissal. The collector referred the dispute to the court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once the petition was dismissed o[ disposed of, the court would become functus officio and has no power to restole the original petition. The onty remedy available to the petitioner was utlder Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by filing an appeal betbre the lligh (.otrt't. The Court by an order dated I 0.01.20 I 5 in l'A.No'570 of l0 l4 irr 5 Dr.GRR, J cr p_450-2021 & batch L.A.o.P'No. 143 of 2004, dismissed the petition Seeking to contlone the delay in restoring the petition. As per the petitioners, the claimants late Sri culam I.lussain died on 29.09.2013 i.e. almost five years after the dismissal of L.A.O.P.No. 143 of 2004. The saicl lact would establish that the original clairtrant late Sri Gulam Hussain abandoned his ctaim fbr his own reasons and neYcr pursued the case for about five years after the disrlrissal order dated

16.09.2008 betbre he died on 29.o9.2}ll. 'Ihe delay of more than 1000 davs in fllins I.A,No.569 ol l0 14 was not eKplained by the petitior,crs on day to day basis to restore L.A.o.P.No.143 o1' 2004. The petitioners \vere guilty of ,,.st.LpJtresio tori sugges tio .fatsi". The predecessors in title ol Lhe petitioners who rvele the original owners of the subject matter of property in Survev No'65 of Madhaptrr Village, $,ere allotted alternate tand by the Special Ofticer and (-onipctenr Authority. Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, atte r verification of all thc documents and handed over physical possession of :he propertr'. -I he peririoners w,erc tu,isting the lacts to suit their claim ovel tire subject matter of properi),. They rvere misteading the court and were trying. lo get advantage' ol' rhose misleading f'acts. It rvas faise to state that they ;ould not uace the pr.,r,ious counsel and had engaged Sri Palvai Jitender Recdy to enquire about the sratus ot'the litigation, as the same learned counsel Sri Palvai Jithender Recldl, represented the claimants as well as.the present petitioners befbre the CoLrrt since 1004. l'he mell"tos on record rvould establish tlre said t-act. r\s such 6 Dr.GRR, J crp 450_2021 & batch ^ it rvas not open to the petitioners to make such misleading statelnent, seeking to condone the delay of more than 2000 days and to revivc the claim, which r.vas abandoned bv the original claimant long back. In view of the suppression and misrepresentation of the facts, they were not entitled lbr restorarion ol- the main L.A.O.P. In view of Article 122 of the Limitation Act. 1961. they had ro seek condonation of delay frorn the date of disrnissal. There was no provision under the Limitation Act, 1963 to seek the condonation of delay from the date of knoivledge about the dismissal. Order XXll Rule I ol CPC and other rules rvere applicable only if the party dies during the pendcncl,' ol the main case. Irr the present case, L.A.O.P. was dismissed on 26.09.2008 and the father of the petitioners admittedly died on 29.09.2013. So. as on 29.09.2013. L.A.O.P. rvas not pending and hence there was no question of bringing the legal representatives on record. The LR petition has to be fiied w,ithin 90 days fiorn the date of death of the party to the litigatiou and the petition to sr.t aside rhc abatement should be filed within 60 days from the expiry of the pcriod of 90 days period as mentioned in Articte 120. The Court by'an order dated

10.02.2015 in I.A.No.570 of 20l4in L.A.O.P.No. 143 of ZOO+, ai..irr"a tn" petition filed under Section 5 of the Lirnitation Act. Heuce, it was not open for. the Court to decide the above petition and prayed to disrniss thc petition u ith exemplary costs. 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch

12. The trial court on considering the contentions raised by the leamed counsel appearing lor both the parties observed that 1.A.No.570 of 2014 was disrnissed bv the Courl giving directions to the petitioners to take proper steps 10 come on record. As such, the petitioners filed I.A.No.;.151 of 2015, 141 of l0 I 5 and 448 oi 20 l5 and the petitioners contended that a:; the original claitnant di.'d. tliey were not having complete knowledge of the sub ect case, as such, lost precious time to know about the dismissal of the petitio:r. The Courl turther observed that it rvas a settled principle of law that the Ccurt could not disnriss the refelence case lbr default and the said order could be recalled in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. The approach of the Courl should be liberal to ef I'ectuate thc intention of the Act. The reference in the main Land Acquisition O.P. rvas rnade by respondent No. I under Section l8 of the Act, hence allowed thc petition restoring L.A.O.P.No. 143 of 2004 to file.

13. Agglieved by'the said order dated 02.02-2021, the respondents 4 and 6 prc t-erred these revisions I4. [Icard Sri C.Raghu, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri Lingampalty' Ravinder, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner - respondent No.6 on recorcl in C.R..P.Nos.-150. 452,455 and 463 of 2021 and Sri D.JtLipal Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Lingampa[[y Ravinder, learned ccunsel for petitioner - respondcnt No.4 on record in C.R.P.Nos.451,458.465 and 470 of 202 I and Sri Dr.GRR, J crp 450 2021 & batch M.Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents I to 5 - claimants rn all the above petitions.

15. Leamed Senior counsel for the petitioner - respondent No.6 submitted that L.A.o.P.No. I 43 0f 2004 was a reference made under Sections I 8 and 30 0I the Land Acquisition Act, ,l864. Originally there were tu'o claimants by narne Shaik Gutam Hussain and Shaik Jahangir. After hling the said claim petition, the second claimant i.e. Shaik Jahangir expired on 08.07.2008. Therefbre on the death of the second claimant, the entire case rvould stand abated fbr the reason that the first and second claimants were alleging thernselves as joint owllers of the property by inheriting the sarne from their f-ather. Their alleged interest in the propefty was indivisible. The case was dismissed tbr default on

26.09.2008. By that time the claimant No.l Shaik Gulam Hussain rvas aliYc. I lor.r.ever, no application was filed during his lif-etime either tbr sctling aside the dismissal order or fbr setting aside the abatement order in relation to thc entire case or atleast in relation to claimant No.2. The claimant No. I Shaik Gularn t{ussain expired on 29.09.2013. Thereafter, for the first time trvo applrcations were filed {y the respondents - claimants, which rvere numbered as t.A.No.570 of 2014 and 569 of 2014. I.A.No.570 of 2014 was fited tbr condoning the delay ol 14 days for filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dared

26.09.2008. lt was stated in the affidavit that the counsel had communicated to therr on 16.03.2014 about the dismissal order dated 26.09.2008 and the-v 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_.150 2021 & barch calculated the 14 davs deray fiom the date of knowredge .e. 16.03.2014 and fi Ied the application for condoning the delay. Arong rr ith the said deta1, petition, the;- also lrted I.A.No.569 of 2014 under order rX Rule 9 of cpc fbr restolarion of L.A.O p. 'l'he Registry instead of numbering only the delay petition erroneously nurnbered both the petitions togethe.. r'he restoration petition ought not to have been nurnbered without the deliLy being condoned. The order in I.A.No.570 of 2014 would disclose that the I..A.. was dismissed on t*'o grounds. one, there was no sufficient cause shown by tr-e petitioner even to condonc the delay of 14 days and the other that the legal heirs could not directry file the petition. r'he said order attained finarity since it \vas not challenged. I A No 569 of 2014 \!as a consequential petition to I.A.No.S70 of 2014. .I'he respondents had later tired three other petitions LA.No.447 of 2015 for setting aside thc abatcmenr order under order XXII Rure 3 of cpc, r.A.No.44g of 2015 lbr condoning the dclay' in filing such petition and I.A.No. l5l of 2015 tbr hringine rhe legal renrese^rali'es on record or craimant No r . No LR petition w'as tiled in respecr of'craimant No.2, who infact died prior to dismissal of the LAOP' Therefore, there was no LR petition on record in respect of craima,t No.2. The Registry asain erred in number.ing the petition filed for abaternenr without condoning the delay in firing sucrr petition. The t,,tire record wourd shorv that there was no I-R petition fired for craimant No.2 n relation to whonr the pr.ceedings stood abated. The LR petitions were filed onlv in reration ro 10 Dr.(iRR, J crp_450_2021 & brtch clairnant No. I . The lower court without appreciating tlle atbresaid discrepancies, passed a colrlmon order dated 02.02.2021 in I.A.Nos.447, 448 and l5l of 2015. The lower court f-ailed to appreciate that unless I.A.No.448 ot' 201 5 was decided, the other two consequential petitions could not bc- considered. Even I.A.No.448 ol 2015 had to be dismissed since the delav petition i.e. LA.No.S70 of 2014 was disrnissed on the ground that therc was no satislactory explanation for the delay and the same reasoning had to bc applicd fbr I.A.No.448 of 2015. The lower court failed to appreciate that in the light ol' dismissal of I.A.No.570 of 2014, I.A.No.569 of 2014 would not exist. 'Ihe reasons stated in the aflidavit filed in I.A.No.448 of 2015 were vaque and tttr suftlcient material particulars have been fumished warranting the condonation of delay. It was not stated as to how the petitioners in the said I.A.s calculated the delay as 100 days. The lower courl failed to appreciate that the [-Rs o1'thc clairnant No.2 were supposed to file a petition fbr setting aside the abatellrL-rtt for the reason that he expired before the dismissal of suit fbr detbtrlt, u'hereas the I-Rs of claimant No. I could not file an application for setting aside, sincc the case was not abated as against claimant No. 1 , who expired a lier thc dismissal of suit for default. Therefore, the petition filed for condonation ol' delay in I.A.No.448 of 2Ol4 in filing an application under Order XXII Rulc l lbr setting aside the abaternent was mis-conceived and the same rvas liable to Lrc dismissed. The entire order was silent with regard to tht' scope ol' 11 Dr.GRR, J crp_450 2021 & batch maintainability of the petition filed by the legal heirs of clairnant No.I after dismissal of the L.A.O.P. for default and the L.A.O.P. stood abated due to the death claimant No.2 and none of the LRs of claimant No.2 rad t-rled any petition fbr bringing on record or for settine aside the abatement or,ler. The lower court l'ailed to see that the delay was not 100 days, but it rvas nrore than 6 years. ln order to circumvent the said delay, the petitioners inger iously flted the LR petition tbr claimant No. 1 in the year 2015. The Courl ought not to have invoked the inherent powcr in view ol the above facts iLnd as there was an abnormal delay in filing the petitions. The claimants had suppressed the material t'acts that during their tif'etime, they had ex:cuted a registered agl'eement of sale - cum - Genel'al Power of Attorney vlde docurnent No.663 I of 1996 dated 01.08.1996 in lavor of Sri Y.Rajireddy. The claimants who rvere the legal representatives of Gudasaheb had seized to be the owners of the land. The claim ol the clairnants was adjudicated by the Sp,:cial Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, r.,,hen the claimants challenged the mutation orders of' the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer vide order No.C/3595/2007, dated 28.11.2007. The said facts were suppressed by the clainrants. The entire payments were made to the claimants and possession was delivered to the r-evision petitioners. The lower court ouglt to have seen that rvhen the applicatior-r rvas dismisse<l as against respondent \o.9 Sri K.Sridhar Reddy, in whose name, a.joint sale decd was registered in e.ichange of the land, I t2 Dr.GRR. J crp_450 2021 & batch the entire petition ought to have been dismissed and prayed to set aside thc orders dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangarcddl'' District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.Nos.569 of 2014 and 447, 448 and I 5 I of 20 I 5.

16. Leamed counsel for the petitioner - respondent No.4 contended that the Govemment initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire land admeasuring Ac.2-27 guntas in Survey No.65 and Ac.0-01 guntas in Survey No.66 situated at Madhapur Viltage, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District by Gazette Publication dated 28. I1.1996. On the claim made by the revision petitioner Sri Y.Anthi Reddy, the Govemment alloned alternate land to him for the land acquired by the respondent towards compensation payable. On an application made by the claimant in L.A.O.P.No. 143 of 2O04,the dispute was telerred 1cr Civit Court for proper adjudication of land acquired ln Survey No.65 Madhapur Villagc, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District Hc'nce. tirc matter was ref-erred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court and thc claim petition was nurnbered as O.P.No. 143 of 2004. As the claim petitioners did not evince any interest in prosecuting their case, O.P.No.I43 of 2004 was dismissetl for default on 26.09.2008. The trial court on an erroneous application of larv and facts, passed the impugned order on 02.02.2021. The trial cou( tailed lo see that the clairnant No. I died on 28.09.2013, but the O.P. was disrnissed on

26.09.2008 and lbr five years during his lifetime the clairnant kept quiet and ditl not initiate any steps to restore O.P.No. l'13 ol 2004. When the clairnant dictl 13 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch five years after dismissal of O.P.No.143 of 2004, there would be no question of abatement as alleged by the respondents - claimants. Tht trial court after disrnissal of O.P.No. 143 of 2004, would become functus o1licio. The Courl below failed to appreciate that Iimitation would staft to run Irom the dismissal ol the main O.P., but not fiom the date ol knowledge, as the petitioners in the I.A. sought to step into the shoes of the original claimants in the O.P. The trial court f-ailed to appreciate that the Government was disinterest:d in the matter as application rvas filed under Section 20 of the [-and Acquisitior Act, 1894 and as there were rival claims between the claimants and respondent;4 to 10.. The trial court failed to address itself whether allowing application would cause prejudice to the respondents 5 to l0 in the I.A. The trial court failed to observe that without issuing any notice to the revision petitioners, the Couft allowed the applications filed by the respondents - claimants for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and fol bringing the legal represertatives of claimant No. I on record. The trial court entertaining I.A.No.559 of 2014 when I.A.No.570 of 2014 rvas dismissed, u,as rvholly erroneor s. .Allowing such petitions without issu ing notice to the contesting respor dents was also an illegality and prayed to set aside the impugned orders pa:;sed by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. dated

02.02.202t. 1 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & balch 17. Both the learned counsel representing the petitioners - respondents 4 and 14 6 relied upon the judgments ol the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajmani v. Collector, Raipur r, Land Acquisition O{ficer v. Shivabai and Others2, Pathapati Subba Reddy (dead) by LRs. And Others v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)r and of the Division Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampa<i v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna{.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants on the other hand contended that as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, once a reference under Section I 8 was rnade, the reference Court w'as under legal obligation to answel' the same on merits on the basis of evidence on record and such reference co'.rld not be dismissed for default. The reference Court had no power to disrniss the O.P. for det-ault. The same was not valid as per law. The petitioners in the CRPs were raising an issue that the clairnant No.l was alive as on the date ol- dismissal and died five years after the dismissal. The clairnant No.l w'as suffering with cancer and was under treatment and his brother Shaik Jahangir' also died much prior to the dismissal of O.P. due to health issues. As such. the petition fbr restoration ivas filed afterwards. Hearing all the grounds tbr liling petitions for restoration, abatement and others, the lower court had allos'ed all the I.A.s. The lower court also clearly mentioned that it had no power to 1(1996) 5 SC]C 701 '(1997\9 SC]C 710 3 20211 SCC Online SC 5 l3 " 1999 (3) r\t-D 481 (DB) 15 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch disrniss the case for non-appearance of claimant. The fatht:r of the petitioners ln the I.A., i.e. the claimant No.I filed an application before the Land Acquisition Otlcer that the land acquired pertained to l.rim and without issuing notice to hirn. a papcr publication was made in three newspapers, which rvere not having rvide circulation. As the said petition trled by claimant No. I was rejected, the petitioners approached the High Court by filing Writ I'etitions. The fraud plaved by Y.Anthi Reddy and others was clearly enumeratcd in W.P.No.25 16 of 2016 and W.P.No.18772 of 2017. I.A.No.570 of 2014 wrrs dismissed givirrg a direction to tile proper applications and to take lunter steps. Though LA.Nos.569 and 570 were numbered in a reverse n'lannel. the condonation of deiay petition rvas l-reard first and as per tl-re directions given by the Court, proper applications vrde I.A.Nos.447, 448 and l5l ol20 I 5 rvere filed for setting aside abatement against clairnant No. [, for bringing tlre LRs of claimant No.1 on record and to condone the delay of 100 days in fiting lhe said petitions. In Land Acquisition cases, Limitation Act could not be applied strictly as a hard and fast rule. The Land Acquisition O.P.s. could not be ilismissed for default fbr non-prosecution and relied uporr the judgment oi the H,tn'ble Apex Court in Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of Indias end K.Rudrappa v. '(i002) I S(lC l.l2 16 Dr.GRR, J a) crp_450 202I & batch Shivappa6 and of the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Gagandeep Singh and Others v. Parkash Singh and OthersT.

19. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned orders passecl by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar rn the above I.A.s. rvere in accordance with law or the satne were liable to be set aside?

20. A perusal of the record would disclose that O.P.No.l43 of 2004 rvas a reference nlade under Sections 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Originally, there were nvo claimants by name Shaik Gularn Hussain and Shaik Jahangir. After filing the claim petition, the second claimant i.e. Shaik Jahangir expired on 08.07.2008. The case was dismissed for default on 26.09.2008. 'fhe clairnant No.l Shaik Gulam Hussain expired on 29.09.2013. 'Ihereafler, the legal representatives of claimant No. I frted tw'o applications vide I.A.No.569 and 570 of 2014. LA.No.570 of 2014 is frled tbr condoning the delay of lzl days in titing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated 26.09.2001t and I.A.No.570 ot2014 is filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC for restoration ol' the O.P. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revisiorr petitioners, the restoration petition ought not to have been numbered, r.vithotrt the delay being condoned. Admittedly 1.A.No.570 of 20ll tiled by thc " AIR 2oo4 sc 43.16 ' 2014 LarvSuit (P&FI) 5543 -t 77 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021& batch respondents - claimants for condonation of delay of 14 da1,r was dismissed by the lovger courl vide order dated 10,02.20t5. The said order was not challensed before anv higher Court and the said order attained finali'y. 'lhe petition' in LA.No.569 ot 2014 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC lol restoration of O.P. was consequential to I.A.No.570 of 2014. The said petitiorr also ought to have been disrnissed when I.A.No.570 of 2014 was dismissed on nerits. Kecping the said petition pending and allowing the said petition on 02.0.t.202 I after a period oi'sir vears by the lower court is erroneous. The leamcd P'incipal Senior Civil Judge. Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar observing that L \.Nos.447, 448 and I 5 I of 201 5 r,r,ere fi led by the petitioners as per the directions of this Court rvhile dismissing I.A.No.570 of 2014, was not in accordanct: with law.

21. Filing of the petition for setting aside abatement ord,lr under Order XXII RLrle' 3 b1' the legal representatives of claimant No. I alone w.as also not rnaintainable. As the property was a joint propefty, if one ol the clain.rants dies and no LRs rvere substituted within the prescribed timt.. thc suit abates as against him. When the rights and tiabitities of the dec:ased claimant u,ere indivisible or joint along rvith claimant No. 1, the abatemen: against the clairnant No.2 also rvould a flbct the entire proceedings, unless the claimant No. t could shorv that his rights w,ere severable. As the clairnants c airned compensation jointll as coparceners, the right to claim was also joint an,l indivisible. In such cir-c trm stances. the death of one claimant and not bringirrg his LRs on record 18 DT.GRR' J crp_450_2021 & batch would result in abatement of the whole O.P. Abatement was a consequence of non-substitution of LRs of the deceased claimant after his death. Since the property is claimed as joint family property, the right to compensation arises tiom a common joint title. The death of one brother without substitution lead-s to the abatement of the claim as to that person and abatement against one aflects the entire O.P. Restoration at the instance of thc legal replesentatives of only claimant No.1 cannot revive the entire C).P. unless they also br:ing on record the legal representatives of the deceased clairnant No.2- 'Ihe trial court erred in proceeding with the case as if the tegat representatives of both the claimants were before the Court. The claimant No.l was alive for a period of five years even after the death of clairnant No.2 in the year 2008. No steps wele taken b-v him tbr bringing the legal representatives of claimant No.2 on record. He abandoned the claim completelY'

22. Even in I.A.No.448 of 20 l5 fited by the petitioners to condone the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement order under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for bringing them on record as legal representatives of claimant No.1, no satisfactory explanation was given by them. The legal representatives of claimant No. I had only stated that their lather could not properly take care of the litigation due to his ill-health, but had not filed any record to shorv as to since u,hen he was suffering with itt-health or the nature of cancer or that his death u,as due to the said illness or he rvas confined to bed or unable to cL)tltact ( t9 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch his counsel during the entire period. Though, they stated that due to prolonged illness, it also affected l'ris memory to some extent, no documentary evidence rvas tlled in proof of- the same. They contended that their lather was unable to corlmunicate the entire particulars of the litigation and arout the counsel on record and that it became very difficult to trace the advocatt's on record and also the litigation. Only after engaging the present counsel, they could able to trace the litigation. Florvever, the counter hled by the respondents in the said I'A. ri or.rld disclosc that they had engaged the same counsel Sri Palvai Jithender Rcddy'. rvho was also the previous counsel to their late fathcr'. Though the delay was rnore than 2000 days (of about 6 years), the LRs of clairnant No.l had not calculated the delay' properly and had shown it as 100 <lays, which r,vas not lllopcr. Allorving the petition only on the ground that the Court could not disnriss the referencc case for default, is not a proper approrrch ,) The Division Bench of the High Court.in Land .\cquisition Officer, Deputv Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Raianna (cited strpra), rvhelein petitions rvere tlled for restoration of reference by the petitioners aRer a delay' ranging from l7 years to 22 years to set aside the er-par1e decree and the learned counsel tbr the respondents therein also submitt:d that the reference ruradc under Section l8 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed lbr clei-ault of the claimant or it cannot be closed for n, )n-appearance of the cleinrairt. tlte I)ivision Bcnch observed that: -., .- I 20 Dr.GRR, J crp_450-2021& batch "ln the Land Acquisition proceedings. rvhen thc Land Acquisition Officer awards compensation and which w'as not agreeable to the claimart. he has to requesl the Land Acquisition Oflicer to refer the rnatter to the Civil Court fbr deciding the market value ol the land acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer gives the proposal of the price which the Govermnent is going to oft'er to thc claimant. If the proposal was not acceptable to thc claimant, then the rcfercncc has to be made to the Civil Court by the t-and Acquisition Olficcr. [n thc reference made under Section l8 of thc [,and Acqtrisition Act. 1894. the claimant was required to lead oral as rvell as documentary evidence to establish as to what was the correct market value of the land acquired. In the absence of imr evidence on that point. the Civit Court cannot answcr the reference. Under such circumstances. thc Civil Court hal.s to set the claimant ex-parte and to disrriss or close the relcrence tbr non-prosecution b-v the claimant and it has to bc intcrprctcd that the order passed by the t.and Acquisition Oltlcer has hccon.rc final. \f,rhatever the uord used b1'' the Civil Court in closing the reference or disnrissing the refercnce, it has to bc interpretcd that the arvard made b;- the Land Acquisition C)fllcer is nradc linal."

24. There cannot be any other interpretation than this. -I'hus, it cannot be contended that when the claimants failed to prosecute the matter, the O.P cannot be dismissed for default

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (dead) by' LRs. and Others v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (cited supra), u'herein t1o 2L Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch steps were taken to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claimant in land acquisition matters, held that: "ll. It is verl elementarl and rvell understood tha courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in deal ng rvith the applications fbr condonation of the delay in tiling appeals anci rather lbllow a pragmatic Iine to advance surstantial j ustice- l-1. lt ma1 also be important to Foint out that thougl on onc hand. Scction 5 of the l-imitation Act is to be construed libcralh. but on the other hand. Section 3 of the Limiution Act, bcrng a substantive law of mandatory nature has to be interpreted in a strict sensc. ln Bheg Mal alias Ram Bux and Ors. vs. Munphi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. [(2007) ll SCC 2tl5l. it has been observed that different provisions of Limitation Act ma)' require different constructior, as for exarnplc- the court exercises its power in a given casr liberally in condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Scr tion j of Lhr [.inriration Act, however, the same may not be tmc uhile construing Section i of the I-imitation Act. [t. therelbre. !-ollorvs that though liberal interpretation has to be giveu in conslruinq Section 5 of the Limitation Act but not ir appl;--ing S"'ction i o[ the [.imitation Act, which has to be construed strictlv.

15. It is in thc light of the public policy upon whjch law of limimtion is based. the object behind the law of lim tation and thc mandatorl, and the dircctory nature of Section 3 a rd Section -5 of thc l-imitation Act that we have to examine and strike a biilancc hctueen Section I and Section 5 of the I-imitation Act in the nrirttcrs of condoning the delay. I ( 22 Dr.GRR,.I -. crp_450 2021 & barch

16. Gcnerally, thc courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause, used in Section 5 ol. the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay ro enable thc couls to do substantial jusrice and to appl,v lau in a meaningfirl mamer q{rich subsen es the ends ol' j usrice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107]. this Court in advocating rhc liberal approach in condoning the delay fbr ,suflicient carrse, hcltl that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by. lodgine an appeal late; it is not neccssarv to explain ever.v'. da;-'s delal in filing the appeal; and since sometimes ret'usal to condone delav may result in tfuowing oul a meritorious matter. it is necessarr in the interesl ofjustice that cause ol'substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and il'the delay is not dcliberate, it ought to be condoncd. Not,x'ithstanding the above, hor.lsoever. Iibcral approach is adopted in condoning the dela.v. existence of .sutlicient caLrse' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent lor exercising the discretionan. power to condone the delay. Thc phrases '[iberal approach', '.justice orientcd approach' anc{ cause lbr the advancement of 'substantial justice' carnot he employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow sralc nlatters or as a mafter of fact dead lnalters to be revived ard r.c- opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the t_inritation Acr.

17. It rnust alrmys be borne in mind that whilc conslruing 'suflcient cause' in deciding application undcr Section 5 oi'thc Act, that on the expiry.' of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal. substantive rights in lavour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightl1.. disturbcd. l.he decree-holder treats the decrce to be binding w.ith the lapse ol' tinre and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights_,, 23 Dr.GRR, J crp_450 2021 & batch f3. [n Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Accuisition Offrcer [(2013) I4 S(]C 8ll. this Court held that the drscretion to condonc the delay has to be exercised judiciously ba'ed upon the lacts and circumstances of each case. The erpressiott 'sufticient cause' as occuning in Section 5 ol thc L rnitation Act citnnot be liberalll interpreted if negligencc, intrction or lack of hona fide is rvril large. It was also observcd lhat even though lirnitation ma1- harshly affect rights of the partics but it has to bc applicd with all its rigour as prescribed tnder the statutc as the cours have no choicc but to apply the law as it stands anrl the) ha1,e no power to condone the ,lelay on eq uitahlc groutrcls.

24. It uould be beneticial to quote paragraph l] of the ahrresaid dccision rvhich clinches the issue ol the ntanner in rvhich equilibrium has to be maintained bctween adopting libt'ral approach and in implementing the statute as it stauds. l'araeraph ll reads as undcr: "12. It is l.r scttled legal proposition that laq, of lirnitation mar. halshlv alfect a particular partl' but it has to be applied rvith all its rigour wh:n the statute so prescribes. The 'Court has :o irowcr to extend the period of limitation on cquiLirblc grounds, ''A result flow'ing fronr a statutorv provision is never an evil. A Court lLas rio po\\jcr to ignore that provision to relieve ulrat it considers a distress resulting fronr its ,rncralion." The statutory provision ma\ ca sc hardship or inconvenience to a particular partl" but the courl has no choice but to enforcr it uiving lull eff-ect to the same. The legal mar inr lrnt lex .serl /e.r rvhich means "the lau' is h rrd but ir is tirc lau". statids attracted in suclr a t 24 Dr.(iRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch situation. It has consistently bccn held that. "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute." 25- This Court in the same breath in the same very decision lide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under: " 15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation. the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adcquate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the coul uithin lirnitation. I-n case a partl is lound to be negligent, or for *'ant ol bona tide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive. there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could bc iustified in condonins such an inordinate delav bv irrposins anv condition *'hatsoevsr. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid do*n by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was n<l suffrcient cause to prevent a litigant to approaclr the court on time condoning the delay' without an!' justification, putting any condition whatsoer.er. amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the Iegislature." (ernphasis supPtied ; 25 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch 26, On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaiti, and the larv laid riou,n by this Court. it is evidcnt that: (i) Lau ol'limitation is bascd upon public policy tt,at there should be an end tu litigation by lorfeiting the right tc remedy rather [ha]r the right itsell: (ii) A righl or the rcnredv that has not been exercised or availed of fbr a long time must come to an end or cease to cxi;t aftcr a fixed pcriod of time : (iii) I-hc provisions o1'thc I-imitation Act have to be construed ditGrentll, strch as Section -i has to be construed in a strict sense trhercas Section 5 has to be construed liberalll-; (iv) In order to advancc subslantial justice. though liberal approach- j ustice-orie ntcd approach or cause of srrbstantial .lustice rnal be kcpt in ntind but the same cannot bc Lrsed to deleat thc substantial la* of limitation contained in Se,xion 3 of thc Linriration r\ct: (l')Courts are enrpor.rcrcd to cxercise discretion to condone lhe delay il sultrcient cause had been explained, but tha. cxercise of poucr is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised cren il sulllcient cause is established [br various lac tors such as. rvhcre thcre is inordinate dela1, neglieence and ui:nt ofdue di ligence: (vi) N.lercl1 some pcrsons obtaincd relief in similar matter, it docs noL mcan that orhers are also cntitled to tht: samc bencfit if thc court is not satisfied u,ith thc cause shor.r,n for th: dcla;, in tiling the appeal; (rii) Mcrits of the case are not required to be con;idered in condoning tlic dela1,: and L. 26 Dr.GRR. J crp_450_2021 & batch (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the dela,'- and condoning the delav for the reason that the conditions have bcen imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

26. The leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar allowing the applications without any sufficient cause shown bv the LRs of claimant No.l, in condoning tl-re inordinate delay of almost six 1,'ears in tiling the petitions without properly counting the delay and w irhout an)' documentary evidence filed by the LRs of clairnant No. l. only on the ground that the Court could not dismiss the reference case for detault, is consider-ed iis eITOneous.

27. Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes 30 days period tbr tiling restoration application against dismissal tbr default and states that the sante has to be calculated tiom the date of dismissal. The said mandate was not tblloii'cd by the petitioners in the above l.A.s while calculating the delay

28. The leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge had also not considercd that I.A.No.569 of 2014 is consequential to I.A.No.570 of 2014 and ill.A.No.570 ot 2014 is dismissed, I.A.No.569 of 2014 could not be restored. Tl.re learned Principal Senior Civil Judge also failed to observe that the LRs of clairnant \o.l u,ere not brought on record and the O.P. would not be rnaintainable rr ithout bringing the LRs on record in respect oi'claimant No.2. ln vierv of all thcsc 27 Dr.GRR, J crp_450_2021 & batch errors committed by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, the orders in these above I.A.s are liable to be set aside.

29. In the result. all the above C'ivil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 02.02.2021 passed by' the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangateddy District at L.B.Nagar in all the I.A.s. Nc ordcr as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in th:se petitions, if any, shal I stand closed SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL )EPUTY REGISTRAR t t I L L S CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . The Principal Senior Civil Judge, R. R. District at L. B. Nrrgar 2. One CC to Sri Lingampelly Ravinder, Advocate [OPUC 3. One CC to Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, Advocate tOPtlCl 4. One CC to Sri D Jaipal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Pr Srinivas Kumar, Advocate {OPUCI 6. One CC to Sri C Raghu, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL \t/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 010612025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.4s0 , 451,452,455, 45g, 463, 465 & 470 ot 2021 1HE 5,.{f6 (), ( d ol rrtr zn6 a\ t Dg sPn rcH e_0 ALLOWING ALLTHE CRPs WITHOUT COSTS eI

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

Judgment

More cases under Code of Civil Procedure