Contempt Case No. 232 of 2022 · The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. 8 M.Vamsi Krishna Goud, s/o M.Subhash Goud, Aged about 38 Years, Occ Business, Rl./o Flat No.502, Shourya Apartme,nts, Street No.16, Hrmayathnagar, HYderabad. Respondent No.8 is brought on record as Lr of deceased respondent No.2 as per Court Order dated 2310312022 Vide lA No 5 of 2021 in WP No 13192 ot 2010

9. K.Vandana, W/o K.Anoop Kumar, R:/o H.No.286121416ll, Flat No.406, B- Block Sth Floor, Jana Priya Apartments, Vidhya Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500045

10.M.Rohini, W/o M.Shailender Goud, H.No.18-6-1080, Near C.S.l.Annarnma Church, Balagunj, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad - 500053 (Respondent No. 9 and 10 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased iespondent No.1, as per Court Order dated 1210912022, Vide lA.No. 2 of 2022 in WP. No.13192 ol 20101 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of Certiorari calling the records in LGA NO 1312008 dt 18-0'1-2010 passed by Special Court under A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act Hyderabad, setting aside the Judgment an J decree in LGA NO 13/2008 dt 'l B-01-2010 on the file of Special Courl under A.P Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act Hyderabad and also the order and Decree dt 27 -9-2007 passed by the Special Tribunal Cum lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to deliver the possession of the premises bearing H.No.1-7-553 to 555 admeasuring 216 Sq.yds situated at Zamistanpur, Hyderabad to petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Re_spondent Nos.l and 2 not to alienate the property situated in the premises bearing H.No.1-7-553 to 556, admeasuring 216 sq. yards, situated at Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.S not to create any Third party interest by way of creating any sale or charge over the sub.ject property by executing any Sale Deed or Mortgage Deed etc., in respect of the property bearing 1-7-553 to 556, admeasuring 216 Sq. yds situated Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad. lA NO: 4 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thal in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. l and 2 their men, GPAS, or anyone claiming through them not to make any constructions or structures in premises bearing 1- 7-553 to 556 admeasuring 216 Sq.yds situated Zamrsthanpur, Hyderabad. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.7 not to create any Third party interest by way of creating any sale or charge over the subject property by executing any Sale Deed or Mortgage Deed etc., in respect of the property bearing 1-7-553 to 556, admeasuring 216 Sq.yds situated Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad. lA NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the-High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, their henchmen, GPAs, LRs or any person claiming through them from making any constructions in property bearing 1-7-553 to 556, admeasuring 216 Sq.yds situated Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad. lA NO: 4 OF 2021 Between: Mr Syed Shanoor, S/o Late Syed Ali, Aged about 31 Years, Occ Business, Ri,ro H.No.1-5-38311 , Dayara [/'larket, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad AND 1 M.Bharathi, W/o. Late Narasimha Swamy, aged about 58 years, R/o. H.No 1- 7 -5 44, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS 2 lt,1.Subash Goud, S/o Jaganatha, aged about 50 years, R/o. Flat No 501, Gangothir Apartments St No.3, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Now Tahsildar, [Vlusheerabad lvlandal, Hyderabad. 4 The Registrar, Special Court for AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad 5 M.Jaya Krishna Goud, S/o Subhash Goud, Aged Altout 36 Years, Occ Business, Rl/o Flat No 502, Shourya Apartments, Street No '16, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 6 M Ravinder Goud, S/o Late M.Narasimha Swamy, Age about 45 Years Occ Business, Ri/o H.No 1-7-5781311211 , Gemini Colony, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad. 7 M.Jagadishwar, S/o Late M.Shankaraiah, aged 48 years;, R/o. H.No.1-5-269, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad. 8 M.Ramcr.sh Ku_m.ar, S/o Late M.Shankaraiah, aged 42 years, Rl/o. H.No.1-5-269, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to vacate the lnterim orders passed in l.A No. 412020 ir' Writ Petition No 1 31 921 2020 dated 1 9 1 07 12021 ...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: GP FOR ASSIGNMEN f Counsel for the Respondent No.2, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10: SRI D.JAGADESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRt M.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 232OF 2022 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying to punish the respondents for their willful and deliberate action of making constructions in property bearing 1-7-553 to 556, admeat;uring 216 Sq.yds situated Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad in clear violation of orders dated 1g-Ol-2021 passed by this Court in l.A. No. 4 o'f 2020 in W.P. No. 13192 o'' 2010. Between: M._Jagadishwar, S/o Late M.Shankaraiah, Aged about 4tlyrs, Rl/o H.No..1-5- 269, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER AND Z 4 5 1 M.Bharathi, W/o Late Narasimha Swamy, Aged about 70 yrs, H.No.17544, Zamistanpur Hyderabad M.Subash Goud, S/o Jaganatha, Aged about 66 yrs, R:/o Flat No.501, Gangothri Apartments St.No.3, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad M.Jaya Krishna Goud, S/o Subhash Goud, Aged about 36yrs, Occ.Business, Rl/o Flat No.502, Shourya Apts, Street No.16, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad M.Ravinder Goud, S/o Late M.Narasimha Swamy Aged about 4Syrs, Occ.Business Rl/o H.No.1-7-5781311211. Gemini Colony, f,am Nagar, Hyderabad Syed Shanoor, S/o Late Syed AIi, Aged about 31 Years, Occ Business, Rl/o H No 15383/1 Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI D.JAGADESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,) TI{E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLB SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDTIA WRIT PETITION No.13192 of 2010 & CONTEMPT CASE No. 232 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: (Per tlon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kun*) 4; Since, issue involved in this Writ Petition and the Oontcrnpt Case are inter-cbnnected both the matters are being disposcd of by this common order.

2. 'l'he Writ Petition, under Adicle 226 of the Consl.ir.ution of lndia, is filcd by the petitioners, with the fotlowing prayer: It !s tharefbra, proyed llrur this IIon'ble Courl may bc pleascd to is.sue uppropriate writ or order or tlirection ntorc 1rur'ticukrllt one in nolure of Writ o.f Certiorqri callittq tha rct'ords in LGA.No. l3/2008 dated 18.01.2010 pusscd h.v Slteciul Cot Under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) ,,111 Il.lderabad, .\e tling dside lhe,ludgmanl and decree in LG.4.No. l l,'2008, dated 18 01.2010, on rhe file of Special Courr Unde r .l l).Luntl Grabbing (l'rohibition) Act Hyderabad and al:o tht Order und Dccree darcd 27 09.2007, passed by the Sl,sgiol '[ribunul Cun III Addl. ('hief Judge, Cir1, Civil ('ourr. lhderabad und consequently direct the Respondents I & 2 to dclivcr the possession o{ the premises bearing II.No. I -7-5 53 to 556 admeosuring 216 ,St1.yd.s situated al Zamistuapur. llyds,.6.,, to Petitioners and pass such other order or o,der.s thi.s llon'hla Courl malt deem fit and proper in tht, L'ircumslancc s of the cust,.

3. Petitioners in the Writ Petition are the petitioners/a lplicant in the LGOP No.39 of 1997 and LGA No. 13 of 2008. fhe Special -lribunal-Cur.n-lll Additional Chief Judge, City Cii,il 2 Court, Hyderabad (in short 'special Tribunal) in LGOp No.j9 of 1997 vide order dt.27.09.2007 and the Special Court Under A.p. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Acr Hyderabad (for short .Special Court) in LGA No.13 of 2008 vide judgment dared 18.01 .20 l0 held that the petitioners/appellants herein I'aited to prove the respondents herein as 'land grabber.s' and dismissed the sarne. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Court in LGA No.13 of 2008, the present Writ petition is flled.

4. It is the case of the petitior.rers that, their father M. Shankaraiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the sub.ject property bearing No.l-7-553 to 556 admeasuring 216 Sq yds situated at Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad, which was purchased u/e Registered Sale Deed dated 17.06. 1970 from one M. Jagannatha Swamy and N.Sarojanamma along with her sister. viz., Anusuyamma.

5. Petitioners contend that, as on the date of Sale there were tenants existing in the property and subsequent to the purchase of the property, the father of the petitioners used to collect the rents from tenants. When the tenants had defaulted in paying the rents, he fited RC.Nos. l8l to 187 of 1973, in the Court of Rent E. 3 Controller at Hyderabad. Subsequent to the death of M Shankalaiah, the respondent Nos. I & 2 i.e. legal hc,irs of the vendors had ittegalty grabbed the property. Challenging the illegal occupation of the subject property by the resporLdents, the petitioners had trted LGOP. No.39 of 1997 before tl.re Special Tlibunal.

6. Petitioners contend that, the Special Tribunal alter considering the evidence had erroneously dismissed the LGOP No.39 of 1997 vide order dated 27.09.2007, contrary to the conlents ol the Registered sale deed, Ex.A-l i.e. Original Registered Sale Deed in favour of M Shankaraiah wherein it is stated that thc ltossession was delivered to M Shankara iah as on the datc ol cxecution of registered sale deed.

7. It is contended that, the respondent.No.2 produced the Xerox and Carbon copy of Agreernent of sale whiclr had no signatures o[ M Shankaraiah and it was concluded thrrt on the date of execution of sale deed itself, he had entc,red into agreemerlt ol' sale with the respondent No.2's father i.e Jagannatha Swarny. Thus, the Special Tribunal by considering 4 the aforesaid evidence observed that the possession was not delivered to the petitioner's father i.e. M Shankaraiah.

8. The petitioners contend that, rhe Special Tribunal grossly erred in accepting the said evidence which is against the contents of the sale deed and thereby erred in accepting the document viz. Ex.B-l i.e. Original Receipt dated 12.12.1975, which was allegedly executed by the father ol the petitioner. It is also contended that the Courl below did not consider the recitals of the Sale Deed executed by the father of respondent No.2 in correct perspective with regard to delivery of possession made in favour ofthe father of the petitioners.

9. Petitioners contend that, the respondent Nos.l and 2 on 0l.05.2019 with an intention to change the nature of the property and in order to cause severe loss .to the petitioners had demolished the entire structures existing in the subject pr.operly. Consequently, the petitioners filed LA. No.l of 2019 in W.p. No. 13192 of20l0 seeking a direction restraining the respondenrs not to make any constructions in the subject premises, to whicli the Respondents Nos. i & 2 through an underlaking stated that they are only demolishing an already existing old building, 5 0 which is in a dilapidated condition and asserted that the.u will not rnake any constructions over the subject property. 'l'he High Courl recording the sarne by its order dated 10.07.2019 disposed the interlocutory application.

10. The petitionels contend that, the respondents \os. 1&2 however, alienatcd the sub.iect property to the respondcnt Nos.3 to 7 by different sale decds. Consequently, the petitioners filed I.A. No.2 of 2020 seeking a direction not to alienate thr: subject properties to third parties, and the petitioners also filecl another interlocutory' application vide LA No.3 of 2020 set:king to implead the purchasers i.c. respondent Nos.5 and 6. This Court by an interim orde r dated 08.06.202 I directed the responrlent No 7 herein not to alienat.c the subject property. However, the respondents started constructions in the subject property .which is in clear violation of the r.rndertaking given by the Respondents Nos.l & 2. II. It is furlher contended that, the respondents Nos.l & 2 in order to avoid the contempt proceedings had alienated the subject propefty to thc newly impleaded respondents Consequently, the petitioners herein filed l.A. No.4 of 2020 6 seeking to direct the respondents not to make any constructions, arrd this Court by an interim order dated lg.O7.2O2l directed thc respondents not to make any constructions or structures in the subject property premises.

12. The petitioners contend that, intentionally att the respondents are making constructions in the subject proper-ty in violation of the order dated 19.01 .2021 passed in I.A. No.4 ol- 2020, which arnounts to contempt of Court punishable under. Sections l0 to l2 of the Act.

13. Per Contra, the respondent No.2 contends that, Jagannatha swarlly is the owner of the subject property who purchased the salne along with his two sisters i.e. Sarojanamrna and Anasuyantura wherein the respondent No- l,s father was holding I /8'h share and Jagannatha swamy purchased undivided share of l/4'r' lrorn Anasuyamma uide Registered Sale Deed dated

30.04.1968.

14. It is fr-rrther contended that, in June 1970 Jagannatha swarny and Sarojanamma borrowed Rs.6000/- from M Shankaraiah i.e. thc father of the petitioners, who obtained Registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1970 towards security and also executed J contemporaneous agreement on the same day in favour of 7 Sarojanamma and another, and even after full discharge of the debt, the Sale Deed was llot returned and also never acted upon. Subsequently, Jagannatha swarry i.e. the father of the respondent No.2 and Sarojanarnma continued in possession of tht: property which later devolved upon the lespondents herein.

15. Respondents turther contend that, in a criminal case vide C.C. No.7 of 1979, M Shankaraial.r gave evidence and s;tated that Jagannatha swamy and Salojanamma are the owners of the subject property and further stated that the respondents had been in possession for a statutory period and also acquire,l title by adverse possession. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner's father is not thc owncl ol- the subject propefly. Consideration by Special Court: 16 Basing on the respective contentions, the Special (lourt had framed the fbtlowing issues lbr consideration: - i.II/hether the pclitioners were cver in possession of the petition schedule proper4'? ii. Whethe r Ex.A- I sale truttsctcliotl r,vus nominal and was never acted upon by the parties thareto? iii.l{hethar the rc.spondents ore luncl grabbers us defined under Saction 2(d) ofthe,|tr? 8

17. Belore the Special Tribunal, the petitioners got themselves exarnined as PW-l & 2 and got marked documents i.e. Exs.A-l to 7. On behalf of the respondents, RWs-l to 3 were examined and got marked documents Ex. B-l to 26.

18. The docurnents relevant for ascertaining the facts of the case would be the i) Registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1970 in favour of M Shankaraiah rnarked as Ex.A- I ; ii) Property Tax Receipts paid to MCH, Hyderabad markcd as Ex.A-2, iii) Rcgistered Sale Deed dated 30.04.1968 executed by Anasuyam rrra favour of M Jagannatha Swamy marked as Ex.A-3; iv) Original Receipt d.ated 12.12.1975 executed by M Shankaraiah marked as Ex.B-l and v) Certified Copy of Judgment in CC No.7 of 1979 marked as Ex.B2. The Srrecial Court in LGA No. 13 of 2008 basins on the oral and documentar v evidence adduced on both sides and havin p resard to the points fo r consideration had observed as under: I. Pnra-8:....7ha LGOP n,os filed in December 1996. The time go t) belwe cn the date of filins of LGOP ond the dote o{Er.A-2 beinp ntore than 6 years it tyould not render any assistance lo lhe pelilioners to Drove their t:osse.s.sion from the date of Ex.A-l (17-06- 1970) to the date of allesed disoossession in I986 II Para-9:.....8x.1)-2 is the CC of Judgment in C.C. No.7/1979 on the Jilc of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad filed b1. Shankctraiah against .lagannathaswamy and Saroianammct \ t 9861 ll! t sr'al q)n LA aull o luto aqt O UOtr'SaSSO mTnr tgiddud illilA-uoOsag@ lou k'ltu auottttad aqJ ua ot UI SDLI oq,A AaDt^Sq lnuuDnDl' Sn.A lt lDtll tAOqS ol oZ lllajll- 3 Z st;l A Jo 2)u?pt^a aqt puD c-B ol €-(1 r-l stu0uat I alll tao4 sjuat EutJ)allo) 211 DauDuDlorDS puD AtuDt4s-DqlDuuDdtlf lDqt l,alttupn qDtD.tDluDr.ls )tn] 6hl/l )') u! tDLlt uaas dq-AD. [Tn4I lg6l .tn?t( ary m p)!p at1 11t1 ,(uonso41ouuo3o7 ol stuz'i aqt tnd o1 pas'n stunual ?Llt llD tDqt s{os ag 'fitadotd arpaq)5^ uqt1r1ad aq1 o1 noqqiltau D aq q swtDlr t'11 ll '{tuo,u.;tn1fiuunilDf ol stua.t dtlt prnd aq pqJ slDs ay1 pot-tad 3uo1 o altnb to1[ sastruatd allt L unu aql sDA all JDtlt afidstp poqltn sao8 t! 'snqJ sayutatd allt 8ulto)D^ nq .{o aunl altt tq -/00t.sll ot ,{1pttpnfi patunqua ravl slll. q) !tA '{1i)!4u! It t sd .[o tuat lod ot pasn aH ttB[nyoy1 'to8tluutntntpaa5^ ot pa{iqs aq tatto ataql stna{ c7 .to[ iltadotd alnpaqcs uotlrlad aqt to uotltod D ut p)ptsa.t atDLl ot sutDp Z-/l4N :71-Dto<I o1 taJa-t a'Dl lt)14J2la lDut t-to )Ltl st t-fl xg .tA o) :; tuapuodsa.t aq !./o uot s s ass od Jo./ao.7afruo.llD pl tnlA wl'.lA Llrado"d alnpzq)s uotlttad a4t ot du!lDpr 166I/-(t/gI patDp lq DtD,\t atlt st 9-U'xZ puD 966I/t/It oJ elijJtTi p.iiaal aqt )oJ 966 t/8, tl pa,Dp t aqJ st t-{ xJ t66 r/9/8 I ?ql patDp t1!q Faor: qDtDtD,,uDLlS Jo trDd aqt uo uotsstluph sDP attu uqDl aq $nw tIntuAl atn BAniAIlOi aiail@ IDq-\iW'1o11mbto u papua ') ) plas aLlJ alq ot ssol lttfBuottt Sursnoc puo (qoruntlunqg) tuDutDllruo) aqt oJ punl alnpaq)s uo4uad aqt plos {aqt wqt 1n-[ aqi Surssatddns ',(uado.td allpaq)s uorylad aL11 lo sluoual aqt uo.t[ sluat 8utpa11ot pun Suttrtput atau taqt tnqt SuBa D 6 a 10 IV. Panrl2:... The fact thtrt Shankoruiah himse lf filed u Crl ( ose uyainsl ,lafunn athswany and Saroiunlmma is nroof oostlive Io show lhat the anplituttts were never m Dossession of the some-.-.. NeitherShankaraiah nor the petitioners ti the LGOp t,os Jiled before loter courl in December t996 made any oltempl 1o rccorter possession of the petition schedule property from .lune 1970. Thus. thcy kcpt silcnt for nlore than 26 years. This conduct of'theirs coupled wilh the above focts rerulers assislance in conting lo the in[erence thot the plea of the re.spondenl.s that Ex.,4- I vds execuled as security for the debt incurred by,la ganno t hastam)rt)os tr ue. The sal e consicle rat b n under Ex.A-l is R.s.60()0,'-. The pleadings of the respondents antl lhe evidcncc of R.lI.'. I ut c calegoricol in saying that, Ex.A-l v,as execuled Io .\erve os .\ccurity Jor discharge of the debt o/' Rs.6000/-.....In Ex.B-l ktlc Shankaraiah clearly admitted ahout R.s.6000/-debr oy,ed b), ,lugannathsvtamy and Sarojarramma. A reference is ul.to madc to an agreement dated lTth June 1970 executed in rcspecl o/ thc petition schedule property. Ex.A-l sale deed is also tlutetl l7i6/1970 and the sale consideration was Rs.6000/-. In litct. l,.W.l was confronted with the Xerox copy of the egreemant dutad I ;/6i1970 und also Ex.B-l receipt and he denied the .sigtttttures therein standing in the name of his father ,\hankaraiah. Iltt ttriginal ogreement must bc in possession of Shankaraiah only. f[6yrrurr, since lhe document was a Xerox copy and Shanktu-aiah died it appears that the re.spondents gove up the idea of ge ing it marked in evidence. I4/e have comnared tlte sipnature.t ol' M.Shankaraiah obtaininp on Ex. B- l wirh thut o/ his .tr.gnalures obtainins on !he certi/ied lthoto copies o/ Vakalarhs (Exs.B-13 ro B-19) and certilied peliliotts (8.xs.lJ-6 ro ll-12) in the seven R.C.Cs Dholo cott Nos. 18l to 187/1973 on thc file o/ Principal Rent Controller o H erd natures are ver clear and it ot bad. 'l'ho.sc holo.si I A-l 7t comDlrison. TheQuestioned sitlna ture on Ex_B- I tallie.s with lhe ttpnatures obtaininp in the above documcnts Exs. 8-6 to B- l9 in all resoects like /brmation 12{ lctters, alignment, specd .slant etc., Under Ex.B-l rece iDt an amount of Rs.5000/- was oaid. Onl 'an antount qf Rs.2500/- out of il was appropriatetl rowords incrrtiat) discharse o dehr of lls.6000t- nde nls trt,nted to e resDo If th v le Ex.B-l cun rPed receipt thev u,ould as v,ell ln,ye DTCSS into service a rged receipt for the enlire antount due inslcud of -for enltltl( neSS O Rs.2 5 00/-onl This wottld also Drob(jbalise the p Ex.lJ- I receipt. Thus, vieu,ed fi om any anQ he held lo be true and genuine. A.s already Sluted the ./trt.t r,hat the Shankaraitth and the petitionet.s kept quite Jbr ntort rhan 26 years would also support thc plea o/ thc resporulent.\ tlt4t onbl o.t securirylbr discharge oJ'tlebt Ex.A_l sc e tleed wtt treculed by Jagannathaswamy ancl Sarojanamma olhcrtt.is.t, Lute Shankaraiah would not hava kept quilc so long ttnd ttllou,etl Jagannalhaswamy lo collect rentals. Thus, the ve ,M our conclusion lhol Ex tonducl o A- I u,us onlv a rutminal sale dcctl und it was never acled upon. V. Para-13:....ve hold that the pctitictn ers rrerc trcver tn l)0\.\ ?sstotl wu,t 4 nomirui sole d Ex.A- I of the petition schedule prooerly an deed executed a:; Japun nal hasv,amy and Saroj!!natnma lirnt Shunkuraialt ,tnd it rvos never acled uoonbv the parties thereto lbr rha incttn t, il securth) VI Parn-14:...-Petitioners have .fijiled to prove their possasslon of the petition schedule property at any point of time at'ter l._x.A_l sale deed. Dx.A- I beinp 4ominal and havins not bten tctetl uDon Pelitioners have no il cannol be held that lhe resoottdents are lantl grabbe ul title ro lhe Drooe rty'. 7'ltert 'fore. L2 VIi. Para-|5: Both sides olso referred to a decision of A.p High Court in Mohammad Vajahath Hussoin @ Fasi Vs. Special Court under A.P. Land Grobbing (prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and another. 2007 (S) ALD 6 (D.B). ln rhis case the schedule proper4) was described u.s hou.se v,ith appurtenont land. I'he Division Bent.h heltl; :f***+* So what need be looke tl inro is pleotlinSi lf rhe pelilion schedule t r0 Land Grabbin allesed that has been de.scrihed as ltuiltlin u ith a urtenanl lan 'Pcourl rlrill not hav iurisdiction. but if it is land is urcthbed alonp with lhe existinp SUDCT come lhe oroDerly in struclures or buildinp rhcr con it rri/l bc disnute and this court trill huye iun.sdiction VIII, IY Para-16:The learned cotutsel /br the uppellant has cited o ruling of this Court renderetl in Shotttln BaiVs. Mohd- Iqbat 2000 ALD (LGC) 40 wherein it i.\ hel(t that buildins which is alleped to have been g,rabbed doc.; noI t'oll y,irhin the definition of land tn'isdicl ion onlv in lhe case of here the lunrl i.s grabhad and subsettuently a land or in a c t will hayc a.f e u) buildinp u,as erectcd thc rcott Para-|7: ln the pre.senl cu.yc, lhe ttctuils of the property are mentioned in column No.7. 8 and 9 us urulcr; 7). Survey Number anl .\uh- fl.\,o. l-7-55 j ro 556, Divi.sionat number. situated at Jami.\tonpur, l,[ushccrohad. 8). *x** 9). **** It mav be noted that os dt!,ainst colunrn No.7 hous es numbers are gTven as 1-7-553 to 556. lr evidenrl y indicate s that therc are ,l houses or a sinsle house bearin I house nurnb ers tn Dorl ions is tn existen ce Even in Ex..4-l salc deed lha property is de.scribed 13 u.\ house beuring Nos.l-7-553 to 556 (Old No.552/.,1. Block No.7), sitltated al Duyaralamistanpura, lvhtsl,irabad admeasuring 216 square yards. Therefore. whol was ptrrchased under Ex.A-l was house onlv. but nol land. This is not tlte case where the lond i,s tlrabbed first arul subse quently builtht 1g v,as erected thereon. T'herefore, Applying both the above deci.siotts, il ntust be held lhat this Court has no jurisdiction.

19. The Special Court by applying the decision:; of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mohammul Vajiloth Hussoin (Supra) and Shontht Bti (Supro) recorded its finding as above and had held rhat, tl're subject propefty purchased under Ex.A-l was 'housc' but not 'land' and it is not the case where the land is grabbed lirst and subsequently building was erected. Thus, it held that i:did not had jurisdiction under the Act, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

20. I-leard, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counse for. the pctitioners and Sri D. Jagadeesrvar Reddy, learned CoLrnsel fbr respondent Nos.2,5,6,8,9 and 10, Sri M. Visl.rnuvardhan Reddy, leamed Counsel for respondent No.7, learned Goverrment Pleader for Assignment fbr respondent No 3 and 4 and perused the record. L4

21. It is to be noted that, the Spccial Tribunal on the evidence adduced by both the parties had observed that, the respondents had grabbed 'house' which was already in existence, and it is not the case where respondents have grabbed the 'land, first upon which have constructed a house thercon unauthorizedly, thus, it held that the respondents are not the land grabbers under the Act

22. The Special Tribunal, while deciding rhe question as to the 'land grabbing' had held that it is an activiry of grabbing of any 'land' by a person or group of persons without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take illegal possession of such lands etc. and further held that 'land' includes right over the land, benefits to arise out of land and buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Shanlha Bni (Supra) wherein, it was held that, building which is alleged to have been grabbed does not fall within the dehnition of 'land' and the Special Court will have jurisdiction only in case of 'land' or 'when the land is grabbed subsequently building was crected there on', the Special Tribunal gave a categorical finding that the house grabbed by the respondents can}ot be called as an act of land grabbing 15

23. Thus, the view tatcen by the Special Court is that if an existing buitding itself is grabbed, the same will not lall within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal or the Special Court and if the land is grabbed thereafier the structures are raised, it may lall within the jurisdiction of the same.

24. The Special Court by considering the documents Lrarked as Ex.A-1 had noted that the subject property alleged to be grabbed is a 'house' but not 'land' and noted that as it is not the case where the land is grabbed first and subsequently building was erected theleon, the Speciat Courl had no jurisdiction under the Act. The Special Tribunal and Special Court took the aforesaid by placing reliance on the decision of this Courl in Moh ammad Vuj altath H ussain (S upra).

25. However, the decision of this Court in Mohammad Vajahath Hussain (Supra) has been reversed by the Altex Court in Stfiya Bee Mohd. Vajahath Hussaint wherern it was v. observed as under: I l. 'l'|rc bosic question to be considered is whether the High tlourt r1'ds L:orrect in holdin2; lhat lhe Appellant,s applicofion ,tncler Section 7A of the Act wcts not mointainable before the Sltecial '(zorr) z scc ga ( 16 T'ribunal "ds the property in dispute v,as a builcting with its appurtenant land". T'he Andhrcr prodesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Ac4 1982 was enacted to prohibit the activity of land grabbing in the State of Andhra pradesh antl to provitle.[or mLt I lers cunnected thercw i t h..... Section 2 (c) defines'land'a.s hereunder; DUrposes 'land' includes rights in or over land, heneJits to arise our of'land and buildings, structures and other things attached lo the earth or permanently fastened to anything attoched to the earth The above definition of 'land' makes it clear that the exoression 'land' includes "buildin PS, Structures und othcr lhincs a lched to the earlh". In view of such inclusive de/inition of'lancl', grctbbine a buildinp attached to the earth amounts to land srabbinP fot the cj. Hence, the High Court erred in holdinp that the Act applies to the land but not to the buildinss Thc Hirh Court was clearlv wron in holdinp that "i/' an optslication i.s lilecl seekins possession of buildinp alons wilh its tutpurterutnt land. because the buildinP ln questiotl is in ?xistcnc( on tha lunl und i.t surrounded by the vacanl land, it cannol be said thal il is a casc qf grabbing pjL!an!l". ln our view, if o builtlins alon p vitll thc land on which it stands is the subi ecl motler ol thc apnlication under Section 7A of the Act, such aoplicatictn is maintainable before the Special Tribunal. The distinction drawn by the High Court behreen "building with appurtendnt land" and "land along with building" is artificial and hyperte chnical and it defeots the very purpose of the legislation. In the light of the de/inition oJ 'land' under Section 2(c) of the Act, both the above descriprions proctically mean the same thing vis-iZt/r-t,is 'land grabbing, and there is no logic or justification for drawing a distinclion betlt)een them. Hence, the High Court erued in holding that tha application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable be./bre rhe Special TribunaE.- ,/ 17

26. In view of the law declared by the Apex Courl that, the Ac1 applies not only to the lands, but also to the buildings along with t[.re land on which stands is the subject matter of the application tunder the Act.

27. The Special Court and 'l'ribunal er:red in holdir:g that the building alleged to have been grabbed does not fall within the definition of '[and'. Further it also erred in holding that only occupation of the open land and construction of :r building thereon can be treated as 'land grabbing' under the Act. 28. 'fhe Special Court on the authenticity of th,: Ex.B-1, recorded as under: "Paru-12.....PW-l was confronted with Xerox Copy of agreement duted 17.06. 1970 and Ex.ll-l receipt and he denied the si,qnatures therein standing in lhe name oJ his father Shankaraiah. The original agreement musl be in possession of Shankaraiah only. f.[owever, since lhe document was o Xerox copy and Shanakariah died it uppeurs that lhc respondents gove up the idea of getting it marked in evidence.... ". The Special Cour1, however, while considering the evidence placed belore it, ought to have the document in question to the forensic authorities to verif,, the correctness of the claim of the petitione/applicant, that tlie signatures of their father. late. M. l Shankaraial.r are forged, instead of itself comparing with the 18 t srgnature on the certified copies of vakalat in RCC,s filcd seeking eviction of tenants during his Iifetime. 29. In the light of the above discussion, this Courl is of thc vierv that the application fired by the petitioner under Section 74 or- the Act before the speciat Tribunal was maintainable and that the Special Tribunar anrr Special court in appeal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised therein. 30. [n view of this above, since, the LGOp No.]9 of 1997 and LGA No. 13 of 200g filed by the petitioner herein befor.c lhe Special Tribunal and Special Couft are maintainablc, the impugned order of the Special Courr dared 1g.01.200g in t_CA No. 13 of 2008 and order of the Special Tribunal dated 21 .09.2007 in LGOp No.39 of 1997 holding rhat rhe appcal and petition are not maintainable cannot be sustained and ar.e Iiable to be set aside.

31. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the order in LGOP. No.39 of 1997 d,ated,27.O9.2007 and LGA No.l3 of 2008 dated 18.01.2010 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Tribunal for consideration afresh. I 19

32. It is made clear that the Special Tribunal may decide the Land Grabbing Case uninfluenced by the findings recorded by this Courl 3 3. In vier,v of rhe order passed in W.p. No. 1 3 1 92 of ll0 I 0, the Conternpt Case is closed. No order. as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth Day of May, Two Thousand and I'wenty Five. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P.GOWRI SHANKAR EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hyderabad Now Tahsild af, Musheerabad Mandal, 2 The Registrar, Special Court for AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad. J 4 5 6 7 BSR GJP One CC to SRI P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI D.JAGADESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPL,C] One CC to SRI tV.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for the litate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies W \ HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 -r i{ i: STA o* o 2 5 ru},| 2[25 I h t.9r, r'-' ,r^ ^ COMMON ORDER WP.No.13192 of 2010 & C.C.No.232 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & CLOSING THE C.C., WITHOUT COSTS \\