M/s. ICOMM TELE LTD v. 1. Mr. P. Jagannadha Rao

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. S. SRINIVASA IYENGAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI P. MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : AGP FOR LAND ACQUISIT|ON The Court made the following: ORDER o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI - AND HON'BLE SRI.IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.23404 of 201 0, ORDttR: (pt'r llon blt.sri Jtr.ttice Larmt Narayano Alishetty) This Writ Petition is fited assailing the judgment, dated 3 I .05.20 I 0, passed in I-GC.No. I 5 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. I-and Grabbing (prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, (hereinalier rcf-elrcd to irs'thc Special Court').

2. I{eard Sri M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri I).Mahcnder Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondent

3. -l'he rvrit Irr.ritionL.r is the respondent and the respondent herein is thc up;rli1;1111 belbrc thc Special Coun. For convenience, hereinafter thc parlies rvill be relerred to as they are arrayed before the Special Court

4. In nut-shell, the fbcts ol'the case are that the applicant filed LGC.No.l5 ol 2008 against rhc respondent-company before the Special CoLrrt c()ntending that it grabbed a house plot bearing 2 AKS, ,J & LI.I,1, J WP No 2J401 of 2010 \ No. 10, admeasuring 250 square yards situated in Sy.No.45 of Nagaram @ Nagavarm Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'). The applicant further contended that he purchased the subject property vide document No.47l3l1985, dated I1.07.1985, from its owner by name L.Kishor Kumar through his G.P.A. holder; that he lenced the subject property with iron wire and kept it vacant; that in the month of March, 2006, the respondent had illegally occupied the same by disposing the applicant and thereafter, the respbndent constructed a huge wall covering the subject property and also other plots; that the respondent was running an industry in the name and style of M/s Icomm Tele Limited; that when the applicant and their family members tried to get information with regard to right and ownership of the respondent over the subject property, they were threatened with dire consequences; and that therefore, they filed the LGC against the respondent before the Special Court.

5. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent belore the Special Court denying the allegations made by the applicant in --'74j;.' '/- J AKS,J&t,NA J WP No 2340a ol20t0 company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in the year 1989 under the name and style of Advanced Radio Masts pvt Ltd and thereafter, it was renamed as 'lcomm Tele Limited,; that the respondent purchased an extent of Ac.l .22 guntas and 54 square yards vidc re{-listered sale deed dated 12.03.1991 and further, the respondent also purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 and 28 square yards vide reqistered sale deed dated 14.03.1991, totaling an area of Acs.3.22 guntas, and constructed a factory in the said land and has been in possession and enjoymenr of the said property; that the respondent also constnrcted a compound wall covering the said area; that subsequentlr,, the respondent purchased 29 plots forming part ol[a1out developed by one Alluri Satyanarayana, who sold the said 29 plots to differcnt persons; that the respondent owns approximately an exlenr ol'Acs.7.00 in Sy.Nos.45 and. 46; that the respondent has nothing to do with the subject property of the applicant; and rhat the subject property is situated far away from the property owned by the respondent. 4 ltKSJ&I,AAJ WP No 23401 oI 2010 \

6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of both the parties in the LGC, the Speciat Court framed the following issues lor determination:- (l) Whether the applicant is the owner of the applicalion schedule propertl,? (2) Whelher the rival title set up by the respondent-industry is true, valid and binding on the applicant? (3) Whether the respondenl-industry is a land grabber within the meaning of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act? (4) To what relie/? "

7. Before the Special Court, the applicant, to substantiate his case, examined P.Ws- I and 2 and got Exs.A- I to A-7 marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws- I and 2 were examined and Exs.B- I to B-27 were marked

8. The Special Court, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, passed judgment dated

31.05.2010, declaring the respondent as 'land grabber' and directed the respondent to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the $uqbct property to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the said order /- ) lKS,J&LNA,J WP Na 2J101 of20t0 of the Special Court, the present Writ petition is filed by the respondent.

9. Leamed counsel lbr the r.r,rit petitioner/respondent contended that the Special Courl has come to an erroneous conclusion that the writ petitioner-/respond ent is a land grabber though no evidence is placed on record to show that the compound wall was constructed covering the subject property. He further contended that the Special Court has committed an error in observing that the writ petitioner/respondent tiriled to substantiate its title ot,er 2 yz acres of land and that the subject property is covered in the said,2 % acres. Learned counsel further contended that the observation of the Special Coun that non-examination ol the Managing Director of the writ petitioner /respondent company as fatal, is wholly misconceived inasmuch as a responsible officer of the writ petitioner/respondent cornpany was examined on its behalf. He further contended thar the writ petitioner being a registered company, any authorized officer can depose on its behalfand in the present case, the legal olficer ol the respondent Company was examined and r,oluminous documents were placed on record. He \ 6 AKS, J & LNA,.J wP No 23t04 of 20 t0 further contended that the Special Court has given much importance to the irrelevant issue of alleged conviction of Managing Director of the writ petitioner/respondent company, which has no nexus to the present issue and therefore, the impugned order of the Special Court is perverse, and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order.

10. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent herein/ applicant contended that the Special Court, on due appreciation of the evidence placed on record by the applicant as well as the respondent Company, has come to a proper and just conclusion that the applicant is the owner of the subject property and that the writ petitioner has grabbed the same. FIe further contended that the Special Court has rightly observed that the respondent failed to place any documentary evidence with regard to its ownership over an extent of2 lz acres of land out of total extent of Acs.7.00 of land claimed by it; that the impugned order passed by the Special Court is in consonance with the evidence placed on record and the writ petitioner/respondent failed to point out any irregularity or Y -'l l 4KSJ&L\AJ WP No.23101 oJ )010 illegality in the impugned order passed by the Special Court and thus, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. I 1. Perusal t>1- the record would disclose that the applicant purchased the subject property under registered sale deed vide document No.47l3l1985, dated 11.07.1985, lrom its original owner by name L.Kishor Kumar through his G.p.A. holder. It is specilically contended by the applicant that he was dispossessed by the writ petitioner/respondent in the month of March, 2006, without any manner of right, and constructed a huge compound wall covering the subject propefty. The writ petitioner claimed that it is the owner o1'Acs.7.00 ot'land in Sy.Nos.45 and 46 of Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The writ petitioner has produced documents evidencing its title in respect of 4 Yz acres, however. it failed to produce the ownership documents in respect ol balance 2 lz acres of land.

12. It is relevant to refer to the specific observations of the Special Court which are as tbllows: "At page -l para I/ of the counter .filed on behatf oJ'the respondent. it is .\rdted that M/s lcomm Tele Ltcl is oltning apltrlrimotell on oreu of more than 7 acre.s in 8 AKS, J & LNA J wP No.23404 ol 2010 r: Sy.Nos.45 and 46 and also obtained permissions, licenses and sanctions from the competenl aulhorities. Therefore, the entire area covering the respondent company as per Exs.B-|, B-8, B-9 and B-22 comes to only less than 4 % acres. Yet the respondenl foiled to file any documenl to substantiote its litle for the remaining extent of 2 % acres (7 acres - I % acres) and in the remaining extent of 2 t/: ocres the application schedule property bearing Plot No. l0 covering an area of 250 square yards : 208 square meters which was purchased by the applicanl, a poor railway employee, who was working at the relevant time of grabbing at Bobbili of . Vijayanagaram dislrict and the same has been grabbed by the respondent laking advantage of his absence in Hyderabad. " ,l3. It is also pertinent to note that the writ petitioner/ respondent company contended that it had purchased 29 ptots which form part of layout developed by one Alluru Satyanarayana, in an extent of 2 /z acres and which was originally sotd to 29 different persons and it has constructed a compound wall covering the said area, which was approved in the year 2004.

14. It is also relevant to note that R. W- I in his cross- examination admitted that Ex.B-10-sale deed. dated 13.10.1995, Y 9 IKS, J & LNA, J WP .\o 2t104 oI20t0 peftains to Plot No.10, i.e., subject properry and plot No. I I in Sy.Nos.45 and 46 of Nagaram Village, however, neither the layout penaining to l)lot Nos. l0 and I I was placed on record nor the vendor of the said docurnents was examined. Therefore, the Special Court did not consider Ex.B- l0 under which the writ petitioner/re spondent cornpany claimed right over plot No.l0 i.e., subject property and Plot No.l l. The Special Courr on detailed examination o1' the oral and documentary evidence placed. on record by both the parties, has come to a categorical conclusion that the applicant has esrablished his title over the subject property, rvhereas the rvrit petitioner/respondent company has lailed to establish the rival title set up by it and thus, observed that the rival title of'the wril petitioner/respondent company is not true, vatid and binding on the applicant.

15. It is relevant to refer to Section l0 of Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, r.vhich reads as follows:- "Burden q/'proof Whcre in any proceedings under this Act, a land is olleged t() hdve been grobbetl, and such land is primo focie provetl to be the land oy'ned by the Governmenl or b.v ct ltt itatc per.sort, tlrc Special Court or as lht, t:ase l0 TKS. J & L;\iA J trP No )3401 ol 2010 F may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that lhe person who is alleged to have grabbed the Land is a land-grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person "

16. Section l0 of the Land Grabbing Act mandates that the applicant before the Speciat Court or Tribunal has to prima facie prove his title to the application schedule property and once the initial burden of proving prima facie title is discharged by the applicant, then the burden would shift onto the respondents before the Tribunal or the Special Court to prove that he/she is not a land grabber and he/she is validly holding possession of the land'

17. In the instant case, as the applicant has proved his prima facie title to the subject property by adducing documentary evidence to that effect, the burden shifted onto the writ petitioner/respondent to prove its titte to the subject property, but it faited to produce any ownership documents in respect of the subject propertY.

18. Insofar as the scope and power ol this Court under Articles 226or22ToftheConstitutionoflndia,itisrelevanttorefertothe decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A'P', v' Prameela AKS J&I.NA J WP \o 21101 aI 2A l0 Modi and otherst wherein it is held that High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot convert itself into a Courl of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence

19. Furlher, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A.p. v. P.V.Hanumantha Rao and another2 held that against the decision of the Special Couft, no appeal is provided and only remedy of the aggrieved party, is to approach the High Court under Articles-226 or 227 of the (tonstitution of lndia. It is further held that remedy of writ petition available to the parties before the High Court is not against thc decision of the Subordinate Court, Tribunal or Authority, bur it is against the decision-making process. It is also held that right of the High Court to interfere u,ith orders of Subordinate Courls and Tribunals is limited, where (i) there is an error manif-est and apparent on the face of the proceedings, such as, when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of law and (ii) grave injustice or gross failure ofjustice has occasioned thercbv. ' 1zoo6y t; scc r,ru r(uoor) to scc r:r t2 AKSJ&LNA,J wP.\,o 23!01 0f 2010 l!

20. In Y.Amruthabai v. Special Courl under A.P.land Grabbing Prohibilion Acf a Division Bench of this Court, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A.P. v. P.V.Hanumanths Rao and anotherl held as under: "36. Il is also evident from the record that the Special Courl neither refused to admit admissible and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned findings. Further, there is nothing on record to substantiate that Special Court has ocled in Jlagranl disregard of the rules of procedure or violated the principles of natural justice. There is no monifest error apparent on the face ofproceedings to issue a writ of cerliorari as prayed for. Further, the Special Courl neither acled v,ithout jurisdiction nor acted in excess of it or.foiled lo exercise the jurisdiction vesled in it. There arc no circumstances lo inlerfere wirh the impugned judgment by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "

21. Thus, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the scope and power of this Court under Articles - 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court cannot r 2022 SCC Online TS I80 I o lzoo:; to scc tzt l3 AKS.J&1N.1 J Wl')\:o.23401 oI20t0 convert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re_appreciation or evaluation ol- evidence. This Court can interfere with the decision ol the Special Court only where there is an error manifest .and apparent on the face of the proceedings and where it resulted in gross injustice or it occasioned in gross failure ofjustice.

22. In the present case, as already stated supra, the Special Court has courc to a categorical conclusion that the applicant has established his title over the subject property, whereas the Vyrit pet it ioner/respondenr company failed to establish right, title over the subjcct propefty and accordingry, it has declared the writ pet itioner/respondent company as .land grabber,.

23. In the Iight of above discuSsion and legal position, in consicrered opir.ri.n'of this QoJfu, the #rit petitioner lailed to point out anv illegality or inegularity in the impugned order or raise any valid or substantial ground warranting interference with the impugned orde. passed by the Speciar court. Therefore, the writ Petiticn is devoid olany merit and is liable to be dismissed.

24. Accordinglv, this Writ petition is dismissed t4 IKS,J&I,NA,J wP.-\o 2)101 oI20l0 c.1

22. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. No costs. /ffRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. M. S. SRINIVASA IYENGAR, Advo-c-ate I^O-PUCI 2. O;; CC to Snt. P. MAHENDER REDDY' Advocate{oPUCl S. fwo CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State oI Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BM BS s HIGH COURT DATED:10101t2025 ( c ORDER WP.No.23404 of 2010 { \\ , ,,, .. . I ,rto -"--- -jj DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS x