High Court · 2025

The Spe,: al (l-.urt UnderA.P. Land Grabbing (prohirition) Art, Hyderabad. Shri A.Hanrrnr,trth Rao, S/o.Sri A.Ramaswamy, HM'l Enrplolee, R:/o.No.194, Adiahnaq,; r, li :cunderabad .....iRESPONDENTS Petition -lndr:- Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndier prirying that in the circumstances r;t,:t:: in the affidavit filed therewith, the l-ligh court may be pleased to issuer a v/'it, order or direction more particularly :ne rn the nature of writ of certiorar' :: I ing for the records pertaining to the LG(l N().61 of 2002 on (l:urt under A.P.Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, Hyderabad the file of Specia 1r,ash the Judgment passed therein dt.27.11.2005 as being d1.27.12.2005 ztnct contrary to the r.l r lr:n,;e on record and violative of Article 1 4 of the constitution " I.A.NO:1 OF 2010 l^f P MP. NO: 7969 OF 201 0) Petition unce- section 151 cpc praying that in the circrms ances stated in the affidavit filecl rr :;trirport of the petition, the High court may be rleased to pass orders directing rhe [rr)titioner herein not to proceed with any construction in prot No. '18 in Sy.Nc. ll6t of Shapurnagar Village, eutbullapLrr [\4,and:rl, R.R. District, pending disposalcf tr,: marn wp No. 2570 of 2006, in the inte-est rf justice. counsel for the Pertit,oners : SRr D.PRAKASH REDDY, sENroR c ouNSEL APPEARING ON BEFIALF OF MRS. D.MADHAVI, ADVOC,ATE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Rerspondent No.2 : SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI The Court made the following ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI ]USTTCE T' VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE P'SREE SUDHA w N 7 0 O DER'. (per uonbte Sri lustice T'Vinod Kuna) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dt'27 '12'2005 passed in L.G.C.No'61 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court under A.P.LandGrabbing(Prohibition)ACt,1982(forshort.theAct,)at Hyderabad, as being contrary to the evidence on record and violative with a consequentlY direction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India' to quash the said judgment' 2 Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy' learned Senior Counsel appeartng behalf of Mrs.D'Madhavi' learned counsel for the petitioners' Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No'2' and Perused the record' 3. The 1$ petitioner herein is the respondent before the Special Court in L.G.C.No'61 of 2022' filed by the respondent herein as applicant. Petitioner Nos'2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the 1't petitioner' who died pending writ petition' on 08'09'2015' 4. on behalf of the petitioners' it is contended that the order of the Speclal Court is contrary to weight of evidence inasmuch as the Special /' T 2 Court d (i r()t :onsider that the land being claimed by the l,rpetitioner herein tc, ;tn :xtent of 660 square yards in Sy.No.;169 rtf Sltapurnagar, Qutbullapur, ?anga Reddy District, has been wrongly helo as part of l-lindustan 1,1;t,.:hine Tools Employees Co_operati!,e Housirg Society Limited (Hf,t--t:rJHS) bearing plot No.18 admeasuring 300 scuare yards allotted n favcur of the 2nd respondent herein anJ th3 sare having been grat,berl f,y the 1st petitioner and thus, declaring the 1. petitioner as a 'lancl il-abber,.

5. The, r:as: of the petitioners in brief is that tht: 1sr peti:ioner has purchased l,trC admeasuring 660 square yards from one K.Satyanara'rar;, initially under oral agreement of s,lle c1t.15,1 O.lg75. followed lrlz ivr-iTen agreement of sale dt.12.10 .7976 in rospe:t of land in Sy.ltJo,,lri,!), :jlapurnagar, eutbuilapur, Ranga Reddy DistricU that the aforesaicl ,l(:eni of land purchased by him forns paft of a large extent of land or, Acs.39.35 guntas belonging to Mrs.Khurshirl Shapur Shenoy anc {)tn : rs who in tui.n had entered into an agrer:met lt to sell the same lo K,S;rtyanarayana, vide agreement of saie dt.22.{) 6.1974; and that the saic satyanarayana had entered into an agreemert of sare with HMTE(FS r) an extent of Acs.37.l4 guntas, t,tereby r3taining Iand to an €r).t,lrt ,)f Acs.2.20 guntas for himself. 3

6.ItisthefufthercaseofthepetitionersthatK.Satyanarayana from out of the land retained by him which has been agreed to be sold to him by Mrs.Shenoy and others, had sold part oF the subject land claimed by the 2nd respondent herein as forming part of layout of HMTECHSandthesaidpartoflandtoanextentof300yardshaving been sold in his favour under a registered sale deed by HMTECHS' It is further contended by the petitioners that on 7. K.Satyanarayana entered into an agreement with the ls petitioner to sell the land to an extent of 660 square yards from and out of the total extent of land belonging to Mrs.Shenoy and others in Sy'Nos'269' 270 and2TltoanextentofAcs'39'35guntas;thatthesaid K.Satyanarayana thereafter entered into an agreement with HMTECHS agreeing to sell the land to an extent of Acs'37 '14 guntas; that however, a sale deed was executed on 20'09'1975 in favour of HMTECHS only to an extent of Acs'20'00 guntas after ULC authorities granted permission only to the said exten! that no sale deed was executed for the remaining extent of Acs.17.14 guntas agreed to be sold to HMTECHS as neither sale deed was executed nor possession was delivered to the sald societY'

8.ItiSthefurthercaseofthepetitionersthatthoughthesale deedisexecutedinfavourofHMTECHsisonlytoanextentof I 4 Acs.20.00 glrrias, the said society had obtained rayout for the entire extent of lanc admeasuring Acs.37.41 guntas whicl was ac reed to be sold to thenr by K.Satyanarayana under an ;igreomeilt of sale d1.21.71..'.97.+ and out of the said layout, the 2nd respondent is claiming 1il tr.,re been allotted plot bearing No.1tt adrnea:;uring 300 square yards :nd the said plot having been registered in ris favour, under a r€),Jisirrred sale deed dt.08.06.1979.

9. The, pr: itioners further contend that on the 2nd r:spondent interferinq litr the possession of the 1st petitioner rrver the rand admeasurinrl 566 square yards, he had approached the CoLrt of Civil jurisdiction anC riled a suit, vide O.S.No.45B of 1983 seel.:inq njunction restraininq trer 2'c respondent from interfering; that on the lrial court not grantin,S njunction, the 1't petitioner had flled a r appeal thereagain:;t r,ri./e A.S.No.16 of tgg4 on the file :f Distrir:t Judge, Ranga Redcv )is;trict, wherein the order of the Triar Court ir refusing to grant in jur(t on was set aside and an order of iniunc:ion was granted n:streir ng the 2nd respondent from interrfering with his possession. 10' The or:ttoners further contended that the arbresaid crder in A.S.No.16 i:f 1l)t)i has been assailed by the 2nd respondent h:rern by filing a ser;ord apoeal, videS.A.No.630 of 1995 and this C.ut ;y order 5 dt.22.07.1996 by dismissing the S'A' affirmed the order in A'S'No'16 of Lgg4 andthus, the 2nd respondent herein is injuncted from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land'

11. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that since' this Court in the second appeal having recorded a finding with regard to the title of the 1't petitioner over the subject land, the finding of the Special Coutt of the 1't petitioner having resorted to land grabbing of the 2nd respondent's land bearing Plot No'18 admeasuring 300 square yards and declaring the 1$ petitioner as'land grabber" cannot be sustained, apart from the said order being perverse'

12. On behalf of the petitioners, it is further contended that this Court in second appeal, rzZe S'A'No'630 of 1995 dt'22'07'1996' while affirming the perpetual injunction granted by the first Appellate Coutt inA.S.No.16oflgg4dt.27.lo.1995,preferredagainsttheorderand decree in O.S.No.45B of 1983 dt'13'04'1994 had noted that the finding of the lower Appellate Court based on some evidence on record is binding in the second appeal and it has to be accepted' and as such' the Special Court could not have ignored the said finding of the High Court,whileholdingthattheprincipleofresjudicatadoesnotapplyin a title suit is a perverse finding, and thus' the order of the Special Court has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioners' -r 6

13. Crrr berhalf of the petitioners, it is also contended tha: since, the Appellate l<rrrr-t in A.S.No.16 of lgg4 by considerinrl th: evidence adduced trr:fr>-r: the Trial Court havinE noted that the ls,petitioner was put in pcs:;ess,on of the land to an extent of 66,6 sciuar,: yards by K.Satyanarayana, from and out of the rand retai,.led by rim to an extent of t\cs,.1.21 guntas, the claim of the 2nd respondr:nt of the subject Dlct \o.18 land as forming part of layout ob:ained by HMTECHI; cannct be accepted and thus, the order ofther Spr:cial Court declarinq t,he 1s petitioner as land grabber having g-abbed Iirnd of the 2nd respon<l:rt ro an extent of 300 square yards bearing plo No.lB in Sy.No.26!) r:,:rrot be sustained and is thus Iiable to b: set asirle. 14. Pet cort,ra, learned counsel appearing on behalf o, the 2nd respondent sullnits that the said respondent w.rs a mr mber of HMTECHS,rrd 11,35 initially allotted a plot by the socir:ty r.zde,\llotment Ceftificate, rlt 14.04.t976(Ex.AI5) under the signature of the 1st petitioner hims:lf and thereafter the HMTECHS had executed a registered sale ceed, dt.08.06.1979(Ex.A16) in his favour.

15. On beh;lf of the 2nd respondent it is further stated that pursuant tc ftre ;rllotment letter issued, he was put in possessic n of the subject prop,-.rf,z having paid the entire consideratic n r eserved _t 7 thereunder and a formal conveyance deed has been registered thereafter in his favour on 18.06.1979'

16. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is also contended that by issuing allotment certificate, the 2nd respondent was put in possession andwaspermittedtoundertakeconstructionbyobtainingpermission from the concerned authorities and the letter of allotment certificate as wellasthesaledeedexecutedinhisfavourbyHMTECHSclearly identifies the plot allotted to him with its boundaries, noted as North - plot No.19, South - 25 feet wide road, East - road leading to Shapurnagar Village, and West - Plot No'16'

17. On behalf of the 2tu respondent it is further contended that since, the lst petitioner, who was the President of HMTECHS had indulged in the activities of misappropriation, he was removed from the presidentship of the Society and taking advantage of the position he enjoyed at the time when the HMTECHS had entered into agreement with K.satyanarayana for purchase of land to an extent of Acres 37'14 guntas in favour of the Society, the 1n petitioner got created the writtenagreementofSale,dt.lz.lo.lgT6,inhisfavouronthebasisof which is laying claim to the plot of land of the 2nd respondent along with another plot bearing No.26 as having been agreed to be sold to 8 him ancJ hr: being put in possession cf the said land ry the said K.Satyar a -a yana dt.74.04, _) 971j

18. on br:rrarf of the 2d respondent it is also contended that if onry the petirioner 1ad purchased the subject rand arob:ed in farour of the petitione r a s plot No.18 under letter of Allotment Certificate, issued under his signature, the 1st petitione- ought to have shovvrr *. said prot of rand as being situated at anoth€ r rocation, instead tr^ e l s petitioner is craiming that the rayort on th : basis of which plot of land is allotted to the 2nd respondent is; on y a drart layout, wh (:r 1as undergone change subsequenUy. 19. on reharf of the 2d respondent it is further contendr:d that a registered r;are Jeed dt.08.06.1g7g having been execrted in l-is favour by HMTECT-iS rras;ed on the ailotment certificate issued or 14.)4.1976, the claim of U- r, 1* petitioner on the basis of the aqree ren of sale cannot stan,:l sc rutiny of this Court. 20. on hr:ha f ,rf the 2nd respondent it is further contended that on the 1st petitione- (laiming to have purchased land admr_.asur,nq 666 sq. yards from l(.rletyanarayana and laying claim to the .l,d r:spcndentt plot and ad;oinirrrl plot bearing No.26, which is shown as trounrJary of the 2nd respc rr J,:rnt,s plot to the west side, the owner ,)f th e s; id plot 9 had approached the Special Court and filed a Land Grabbing Case vide LGC.No.184 of 1999, wherein the Special Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to cause verification of the subject plot of land allotted and alleged to be grabbed by the 1s petitioner; and that the Advocate Commissioner by his repod' dt'26'02'2OOL' submitted to the Special Court had stated that the application schedule plot No'26 was bounded by road on North &west' on East - plot No'18 and on South - plot No.25, and in the application schedule land there were 15 pits dug for the purpose of raising pillars'

21. By noting as above, the Advocate Commissioner in his repoft stated that the application schedule plot bearing No'26 falls within the land allotted to HMTECHS and a sketch was also prepared by the Assistant Director Showing the survey Nos.269, 270 and 271 of Quthbullapur Village, and the application schedule land bearing plot No.26 was shown in green colour in the sketch and the area retained by the vendor. of the respondent is shown in orange colour in the sketch.

22. On behalf of the 2nd respondent' it is contended that the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in LGC'No'184/1999 clearly shows that boundary of plot No'26 on East is plot No'18' which plot is shown as west boundary of Plot No'18' T _J 10

23. Or lrr:half of the 2nd respondent it is further co,ltenJed that the Special Ccirrt taking note of the fact that the suit filec by the 1s petitione,r herein vide O.S.No.45Bl1983 is only fo- grant of perpetual injunctio-r, htC observed that the findings recorCed thei ein cannot operate as t e s judr.cata, while adjudicating the ti,e suit anc since, the 2nd responrjert had prima facie provedhis title to tne sr.:bje rt plot i.e., prot No'1ti rrr the bas s of the aflotment certificate(E:x.A15) f,rilowed by registererJ :;a <, deed(Ex.A16), had righ,y held tha! th. cleim of res judicata vuriilci not be applicable. 24. On l;erhl f of the 2nd respondent it is further crtnterdec that the sketch map p,_epared by the Assistant Director of tsurvey ; nd Land Records, Flar! a Reddy District, filed along with / \dvocate commissioner.t report in LGC.No.18411999 clearry shows the iocation of plot No..2ti, vyrich is abutting to plot No.18 allotted in f,tvo.,r of the 2nd responcl:rrt iterein and also demarcates the lancl of Acr,)s 2.21 guntas beinE r:lairred by the peUtioner as left over land belon ling to K.SaVanararrarra, out of which the land to an extent of 6615 sq yards having been ergreecl for being sold in favour of the 1$ petitioner. 25. On belatF lf the 2nd respondent it is further contr_.nded thtt the Special Court lacl lcted that the allotment certificate is:;ued in f tvour of the 2nd respotcltrnt under the signature of the 1sr petition.r hixserf re:- 11 records that the member is at liberty to proceed with the construction of the house if he so chooses and the registration of plot in his favour will be done along with other registrations, had held that the postponement of registration after issuing allotment certificate is only to register the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent along with registrations in favour of other allottees'

26. on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is also contended that wrltten agreement of sale stated to have been executed by K'Satyanarayana in favour of the petitioner agreeing to sell land admeasuring 666 sq' yards, as flled into the Court by the 1't petitioner in OS'No'485/1983' and does not record any specific boundaries of the said extent of land and on the other hand it mentions as on East - old road leading Hyderabad to Narsapur , West - proposed road of 25 feet, North - nelghbours land, Sought - land of YR Patel, as per rough sketch of land annexed to it.

27. The 2nd respondent further contends that the lst petitioner taking advantage of mentioning of east boundary as road leading from Hyderabad to Narsapur and west as proposed road of 25 feet had grabbed the land of the 2nd respondent bearing plot No.1B as well as the neighbouring plot on its west claiming the said extents of land as having been sold by K.Satyanarayana under agreement of sale 12 dt.12.10 1-t'7'3, by which time already a layout was appr.ove,l in favour of HMTECFS ;rnd that the boundaries of land being ctaimed by the 1't petitione' unrir:r the aforesaid agreement of sale do not rnat(h with the boundari::; c'the plot sold in favour of the 2nd resltoncent, and thus, the petitic,re' without any varid tifle and entitrement hac grlbbed the plot of land,:,f the 2nd respondent herein and thus, the Sp(cial Court had rightlv d:clared the petitioner as rand grabber in terrrs of the provision:; rtr t I- r: Act.

28. on br:har" of the 2nd respondent it is further contende(r that the legal heirs; or r)ra,,ner of plot No.26, which is abutting on tlre w:st to the 2nd responrle,n.'; plot, namely Atchaiah, have filed a citmp-ehelsive suit for declar,ti,r' c f titre and recovery of possession oF prct Nc .26 from the legal hr:i-s.r the lstpetitioner herein video.s.Nc.935/20_6 on the file of the II r\dditional District ludge, Medchal_Malkajgiri, and the same was dr:cr:ed in favour of the legal heirs of tre cwne. of plot No.26 nametv Atchaiah, by judgment and decree, dt,23.09.2024, and thus, the clai.n tr the 1n petitioner of he being the owner of the land to an ext€,nt ,:rf 666 sq. yards, which includes the lan<j of the 2nd respondent lc, ,)n extent of 300 sq. yards stand falsified, and trus, the l't petitior e- ( annot claim that the Special Court without considerinq /a Dp r:ciating the documents in correct perspe:tiv€ having 13 held the 1't petitioner as land grabber or for that matter the order of the special Court either being erroneous or perverse' Thus' the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition'

29.Insupportoftheaforesaidsubmissions,relianceisplacedon the decision of this Court in smt. Y.Amruthabai, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and Ann us. The Spt' Court under A'P' Land Grabbing Proh, Act and orc.1.

30. The Special Court by considering the claims of the 2nd respondent/applicant as well as the ls petitioner herein as respondent had framed the following issues for trial: 1 2 3 4 5 Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule ProPertY? Whether the rival title set up by the respondent is true, valid and binding on the applicant? Whether the judgment rendered in O'S'No'458/1983 as confirmed ln As.trto.rolrg94 and SA.No.630/1995 on the file of the High Court operates as 'Res-judicata' in this proceedings? Whether the respondent is a land grabber within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? To what relieP I order dt.28.09 2022 in W P No 3320 of 2006 1,4

31. The itecial Court by framing the aforesaid issu:s and by scanninq the :vidence adduced on behalf of the respective t,artles, had held that -.hz 2nd respondent herein is the owner of the application schedule'prcp€,ty and that the lstpetitioner herein had fail,:d to place rebuttal evidr:n:e to establish the rival title set up by.hinr.

32. Th,:r Sll2.ial Coui't, by recording its findings as abov( held that the 1st pr:titir:i'er is to be declared as land grabber urithin thl meaning oF the Act yrhile the 2nd respondent/applicant is the owrer of the application sr:lri:dule land, and thus, the 1s petitioner is liable for eviction.

33. We have I taken note of the respective submissions mac e.

34. At ltt{-. lrtset, it is to be noted that the petiti,ner; arrr claiming the land ]nle,r an agreement of sale, dt.l2.I1.tg76, s:ate( to have been exe.ul.e,l by one K.Satyanarayana in furtherance of the oral agreemeni: ente red into on 15.10.1975, whereby the lancl to ln extent of 666 s<l y-arc:; out of Acres 2.21 guntas was agrr_.ed to b: sold in favour of the l5 petitioner and the 1st petitioner having p,aid t1e entire sale consid(tratiort thereunder.

35. Hornrt:vli'; - it is to be noted that the 1st pe,titiorer.s vendor sri K.satyar a'ayana, himself is an agreement holder f rom smt Kurshid 15 Shapur Shenoy, whereby he has agreed to purchase land to an extent of Acres 39.35 guntas.

36.NodocumenthasbeenplacedbeforetheSpecialCourtwhereby the entire extent of land agreed to be sold in favour of K.Satyanarayana by Mrs.Kurshid Shapur Shenoy and others under agreement dt.22.O5.lg7 4, having been conveyed'

37. On the other hand based on the aforesaid agreement of sale entered into by K.Satyanarayana with Mrs'Kurshid Shapur Shenoy and others, K.Satyanarayana had in turn had entered into an agreement of sale with HMTECHS to sell land to an extent of acres 37.14 guntas and thereafter a registered sale deed having been executed only to an extent of Acres 20.00 guntas.

38. The Special Court in its order had categorically recorded the above factual Position.

39. The Special Court further noted that on registering the sale deedinrespectoflandtoanextentofAcres20.00guntasinfavourof HMTECHS, the said society had obtained lay out plan in respect of Acres 37.14 guntas of land from Grampanchayath' and the 2nd respondenthereinwasallottedplotNo.18,initiallyUnderallotment certificate, dt.14.04.1g76, issued by the Society, marked as Ex'A15' 16 and thefttaft3. a registered sale deed being executed on )8.06.1979 marked i:s; E>1.A,16.

40. Th:: -(,gx:cial Court noting as above had held thi t the 2nd respondernt, rvl^o had filed the subject application orr the bass of which the LGC.trlc.61 of 2002 is registered had dischargeri th. iniliar burden cast on r-ir1 i1 terms of Section 10 of the Act and it is.or the 1sr petitioneri'rr:s oondent tc prove that he has not grabbec th€ aforesaid 47, Th€,:;f€(ial Court further noted that the lsrpetitione- had laid his claim t:r tl-e subject land under an agreement of :;ale stati d to have been execur.e J by an agreement holder, who himself cloes not have any varid tit e 1 () the subject rand for the 1st petitioner to cr, rim of he having any titl3,o the same.

42. Tho-rr1h rn beharf of the petitioners it is cont.nded thlt the 1'r petitioner rvas 1t:t in possession of the subject land by his v endor on executing the zqreement of sale, dt.l2.1}.Lg76, and her ha,,ing paid the entire ,:c,nr; ceration, it is pertinent to note that the Spe< ial Court had also t,akr:n rote of the fact that if only the 1sr pr:titicner rad paid entire conriid,3r a tion, there no need for entering into agreemer.t of sale rather tharr a s,: e,deed itself. _. 77

43. It is to be noted that one cannot claim title to the subject property on the basis of an agreement of sale, as it is only an agreement to sell, which transaction is yet to take place, the claim made thereunder cannot stand scrutiny of the Court.

44. Further, Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates that in respect of immovable property, registration is compulsory and in the absence of registration, the document, under which claim is being made, can only be considered as giving a right to the person claiming thereunder and not valid title in his favour[See Saniay Sharma v' Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Otherf\.

45. Though before us, it has been sought to be contended on behalf of the 1't petitioner that the subject land forms part of the left out land of K.Satyanarayana to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas out of Acres 39'35 guntas agreed to be purchased from him by Mrs'Kurshid Shapur Shenoy and others, the Advocate Commissioner report filed along with the sketch prepared by the Additional Director clearly goes to show that the extent of left over land of Acres 2.21 guntas is located elsewhereandthesubjectlandbeingclaimedbythepetitionerisnot even within the close proximity of the left over land for the 1't ' 2024 sCC Online sc 4589 18 petitioner tc claim that the subject land is agreerd tc, be sold to him under a,qret:ment of sale

46. r\s; roted herein above, K. Satyanarayerna hinself is an agreemont hclder and it is setUed position of lar / that ar agreement holder ca rr ot enter into an agreement, on the bas,s or which the petitioner c.. claim of he having been delivered p;rssior of land of 666 sq. yard:; ,r survey No.269 and thereby hav ng valir tifle and entitlement ,lrr:rs1o s.6 the Special Court having e_roneous y declaring him as land (l.abber. 47 . Furthe rr this Court also cannot ignore tf e fact rf the lst petitioner irar ng rost his craim to the part of the rand bering :raimed by him in 1.he sujt filed by the legal heirs of late Act aiah vide O.S.No.git5/;lt I6. under judgment and decree, dt.23.0-. ,2004, lo contend il-at tie order of the Special Court is by excluding tl consider the releva,r rrateriar and considering irrerevant mErteriar ard thereby being pen,erse. for this Court to interfere.

48. For the aforesaid reasons. this Court is of :he view that the order of the S t:cial Court does not suffer from any irfirmity o. illegality or perversib/ f_rr being interfered by tlris Court in exr:rcis: of writ jurisdiction _-

49. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed" No order as to costs.

50. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed in the light of this final order. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY srsrarur RectsTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for th State of Telangana at 8X1"St?S JR8't *oonour, Advocate toPUCl ^ ^., ili: # i"'sii krnAN PALA(uRrHl' Advocate [oPUCl 2 J 4. Two CD CoPies o SA GJ \ ) ( HIGH COUFIT DATED:09t062OZs ORDER WP.No.25Z0t,tf 2006 -.=: jg.tru I c o() 0 3 JUi 7025 i .€s * DISMISSING 'I'HE W.P WITHOUT COISTS. 0) o