E.A. Chinna Swamy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.26812 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner purchased plot No.211 admeasuring 333.8 sq. yards under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1988 from M/s Three Murthy Weaker Sections Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereafter called, the society). The land is comprised in survey No.74/12 situated at East Marredpaly in Secunderabad. He obtained building permission vide proceedings in CBR No.11(18) on 28.10.2004 under Section 181(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and commenced the construction. He alleges that respondent No.3, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer(MRO), East Maredpally, started interfering with the construction activity on the ground of pendency of L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 filed by him(MRO) before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereafter called, the Special Court). Therefore, he filed the present writ petition alleging that he is not a land grabber, that the society sold the land which was purchased by it under registered document No.188/1978 and that he being not a party to L.G.C., interim orders passed by the Special Court are not binding on her.
Operative part
At the stage of admission itself, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) opposed the writ petition contending that the petitioner was arrayed as a party respondent to L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 and therefore, the order of injunction passed by the Special Court prohibiting any construction operates against him. This is disputed. The learned Government Pleader also produced a copy of the order in W.P.No.19568 of 2005 dated 06-09-2005 passed by this Court ordering status quo regarding the possession and the construction. In many such cases filed before this Court alleging interference by the revenue authorities in respect of the land comprised in survey No.74 (various sub-divisions), this Court passed the following order. impleading Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally shall file the Special Court application before petitioners in L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and obtain appropriate orders against the petitioners.
Till then, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not in any manner disturb the possession of the petitioners. Further, in view of the orders of injunction granted by the Special Court on 08.12.1998, as referred to herein above, it would be appropriate to direct status quo as on today with regard to possession as well as construction by the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the order dated 01.11.2002 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21825 of 2002. By the said order, W.P.No.21825 of 2002 was disposed of observing that the revenue officials shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner therein and that the person claiming ownership is bound by any decision of the Special Court in L.G.C. as the vendor society was a party in the said proceedings. In this case, the petitioner obtained sanction on 28.10.2004 and commenced construction recently.
Though this Court is not inclined to pass any order regarding construction, following the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21825 of 2002 dated 01.11.2002, this writ petition is also disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. It shall, however, be open to MRO to implead the petitioner herein, if not already impleaded, in the pending L.G.C. and seek appropriate orders from the special Court. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26th December, 2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonments Act, 1924 — s. 181(1); Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Dec 2006. The bench was V V S RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.