G. Srinivasa Rao and two others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, rep., by Principal Secretary, Secretariat

Judgment

: Counsel for the appellants : Shri T. Sharath April 20, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J. The appellants, who claim to have purchased Plot Nos.5 and 8 to 13 comprised in Survey No.27/2 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing G.O.Ms.No.539, Revenue (UC.II) Department, dated 10-5-2006 issued by the State Government for allotment of surplus land to respondent Nos.4 to 16, but could not persuade the learned Single Judge to entertain their prayer. This is the reason why they have preferred appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

In the affidavit filed by him in support of the prayer made in the writ petition, appellant No.2 – N. Naveen Kumar averred that he along with other writ petitioners purchased the plots in Survey No.27/2 of Guttala Begumpet Village from Shri J. Jaihind Reddy, General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri Kummari Rajaiah; that respondent Nos.4 to 16 filed applications for allotment of surplus land in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.455, Revenue (U.C.I) Department, dated 29-7-2002 and that even though they are not eligible for allotment of land in terms of that G.O., the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 10-5-2006 allotted land to them under Section 23 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). He further averred that respondent Nos.4 to 16 are seeking to forcibly take possession of the land comprised in Survey No.27/1. In the counter filed by him, Shri P. Ravinder Reddy, Special Deputy Collector in the Office of Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad (respondent No.2) averred that allotment of land was made to respondent Nos.4 to 16 strictly in accordance with the policy of the government and that the petitioners (the appellants herein) do not have the locus to challenge the same. In two separate affidavits filed by Dr.Archana (respondent No.11) and Shri M. Anand Kumar (respondent No.16), it was pleaded that the petitioners do not have anything to do with land comprised in Survey No.27/1 and, therefore, they cannot have any legitimate grievance against the allotment of land vide G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 10-5-2006. The deponents alleged that the writ petitioners had tried to forcibly occupy the land, but they could not do so in view of the order of injunction passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.3794 of 2006 in O.S.No.2303 of 2006. For better appreciation of the stand taken by the official and private respondents, paragraphs 2 to 9 of the affidavit of Shri P. Ravinder Reddy and paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Dr.Archana are reproduced below: Paragraphs 2 to 9 of the affidavit of Shri P. Ravinder Reddy 2. In reply to paras 2 to 13 it is respectfully submitted that the facts of the case are that Sri V. Venkateswara Rao S/o.Seetharamaiah filed statement in Form I u/s.6 (1) of the Act declaring the following properties: S.No. Description of the Property Location 1 2 3 4 5 Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Guttala Begumpet 10 Guttala Begumpet 11 Guttala Begumpet 14 Guttala Begumpet 14 Guttala Begumpet 156/6 Sy.No. Extent in Acrs. 5.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00

3. It is respectfully submitted that the statement has been got enquired during the course of enquiry it was revealed that the declarant is holder of the following properties: S.No. Description of the Property Location 1 2 3 4 Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Guttala Begumpet 10 Guttala Begumpet 11 Guttala Begumpet 14 Guttala Begumpet 16 Total: Sy.No. Extent in Sq.Mtrs. 45121.82 44312.46 38039.92 51394.36 178868.56

4. It is respectfully submitted that provisional orders U/s.8 (1) and draft statement u/s.8(3) of the Act were issued vide reference No.F1/4129/76, Dt: 19.5.1993 and got served on the declarant. Final orders U/s.8 (4) and final statement U/s.9 of the Act were issued confirming the provisional orders without any alteration vide reference No.F1/14129/76, Dt:16.11.1994.

5. It is respectfully submitted that aggrieved by the said orders, the 3rd party purchasers filed appeal U/s.33 of the Act in Appeal Nos.Hyd/38/95, Hyd/39/95, Hyd/45/95 & Hyd/46/95, which were disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide Procs.No.Hyd/38 & 39/95, Dt.18.11.95 and Hyd/45 & 46/95, Dt: 07.03.96 and the matter was remanded with the following observations: “Further relief under G.O.Ms.No.733, Atiya Mohammadi Begum case is also relevant issue to be examined. In the circumstances it is a fit case to be remanded to Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad for examining the issue with reference to Atiya Mohamadi Begum case ratio, G.O.Ms.No.733, Dt: 31.10.1988 and latest guidelines of Government of India.”

6. It is respectfully submitted that on remand, the case has been taken-up for fresh enquiry and during the course of enquiry it is found that the declarant Sri V. Venkateswara Rao was also holding the property in Sy.No.27, admeasuring 10216.76 Sq.Mtrs. and in Sy.No.32, admeasuring 51883.03 Sq.Mtrs. situated at Guttala Begumpet Village, therefore, after hearing all the parties, final orders U/s.8 (4) and final statement U/s.9 of the Act were issued vide reference No.F1/4129, 11821 & 11824/76; G1/267/76; F1/268/82; G1/307, 319/82; F1/346, 487/82, Dt: 21.05.2004 as under: S.No. N a m e of the Village Sy.No. Total Extent Sq.Mtrs. 4011.13 E x t e n t allowed retain Sq.Mtrs. - Extent declared as surplus Sq.Mtrs. 4011.13 1 2 3 4 5. 6. Guttala Begumpet (Vg) Serilingampally (M) Total: 10 11 14 16 27 32

44312.46 38039.92 51394.36 10216.76 51893.03 199867.66

1000.00 - - - - 1000.00

43312.46 38039.92 51394.36 10216.76 51893.03 198867.66

7. It is respectfully submitted that notification U/s.10 (1) of the Act was published in A.P.Gazette No.176, Dt:12.08.2004 and declaration U/s.10 (3) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.260, Dt: 26.11.2004. Notice U/s.10 (5) of the Act was issued on 22.02.2006 and possession of the surplus land has been taken over on 31.03.2006.

8. It is respectfully submitted that according to Chowfasia for the year 1975-76 an extent of Ac.2.21 gts. equivalent to 10216.76 Sq.Mtrs. only in Sy.No.27 is recorded in the name of Sri V. Venkateswara Rao at Khata No.2 and an extent of Ac.3.20 gts. is recorded in the name of Kummari Rajaiah againsat Sy.Nos.27/AA of Guttala Begumpet Village. Therefore, the land which is recorded in the name of Sri V. Venkateswara Rao alone is considered for computation.

9. It is respectfully submitted that after determining the surplus land the following persons have filed applications in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455, Dt: 29.07.2002 seeking regularisation of their purchases: S.No. Application No. Name of the applicant Regd.Doct. No. & Date Plot No. / Sy.No. Extent Sq. Mtrs. 1 2 3 4 F1/455/477/05 Dr.B. Mahender Reddy, S/o.Late Ram Reddy, R/o.H.No.3-5-590/104, Sharada Vittalwadi, Hyderabad Apartments, F1/455/478/05 Sri M. Anjan Reddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy, R/o.H.No.16-2-716/C/4, Akber Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad F1/455/482/05 Smt.A. Pravena Kumari, W/o.Rajendra Babu & D/o.Yadhav Rao, R/o.18- 5-644/B, Aliyabad, Hyderabad F1/455/484/05 Smt.V. Jyothi, W/o.Ashok Kumar, R/o.H.No.1-58/3, Miyapur Village, R.R. District.

5. F1/455/485/05 Sri Prashanth S. Gupta,

6. S/o.Shashi Kumar Gupta, Vasanth R/o.B-764, N a g a r , Kukatpally, Hyderabad F1/455/486/05 M/s.Grand Castings rep. by its Proprietor Sri S.S. Anand, S/o.Late S.V. Ramaiah, R/o.H.No.1-8- 575/1, Industrial Area, Azamabad, Hyderabad.

7. F1/455/487/05 Sri J. Venkatesh Babu S/o.J. Laxminarasimhaiah, R/o.1-9-329/101, P.R.K. Mansion, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad.

8. F1/455/490/05 Kum. D. Archana,

13. D/o.Sudhaker Rao, R/o.1-9-1113/14/1, Dayanand Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. Nagar, F1/455/493/05 Sri T. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Buchaiah, Late R/o.H.No.18-5-618/1, Aliabad, Hyderabad F1/455/494/05 Sri T. Dinesh S/o.Padma Rao, R/o.H.No.2-1-270/2, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. F1/455/483/05 Sri A. Venkat Rao, S/o.Late Satyanarayana & Smt.A. Arun Jyothi, Rao, W/o.Venkat R/o.H.No.18-5-644/B, Aliabad, Hyderabad F1/455/491/05 Smt.Reshma Kaur, W/o. Iqbal Singh & Sardar Smt.Avnith B. Singh, W/o.Dr.Sardar Bimal Singh, R/o.6-1-120, Mirra M a n s i o n , Opp:L JPL Colony, Miyapur, R.R. Dist. F1/455/492/05 Sri M. Anand Kumar, S/o.Timmaiah Gupta, R/o.Flat No.104, Jaganath Residency, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad Paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Dr.Archana 5863/04, Dt: 26.5.04 Plot No.16 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 12238/04, Dt:4.12.04 Plot No.17 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 6424/04, Dt: 10.6.04 Plot No.20 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 5864/04, Dt:26.05.04 Plot No.15 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 6425/04, Dt:10.06.04 Plot No.14 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 Dt.4.12.04 Plot No.13 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 6426/04, Dt.10.06.04 Plot No.12 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 Dt: 21.3.05 Plot No.11 in Sy.No.27/1

183.92 Dt.21.3.05 Plot No.18 in Sy.No. 27/1

183.92 3485/05, Dt:21.3.05 Plot No.19 in Sy.No. 27/1

183.92 12236/04, Dt.4.12.04

415.99 Plot Nos.7 & 8 Sy.No.27/1 3486/05, Dt.21.03.05 Plot No.2 Sy.No.27/1

1003.20 3484/05, Dt.21.03.05 Plot No.4 Sy.No. 27/1

112.86

9. As regards the contention of the petitioners that there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries of Sy.No.27/1 and 27/2 of Guttala Begumpet Village is concerned, I submit that the petitioners with the help of anti-social elements attempted on 5.10.2006 to illegally and high-handedly occupy the property purchased by these respondents. These respondents filed O.S.No.2303/2006 before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of these respondents of the properties purchased by them as mentioned above. In the said suit I.A.No.3794/2004 was filed for temporary injunction by the respondents against the petitioners. On 17.10.2006, ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of these respondents against the petitioners restraining the petitioners from interfering with the plaint schedule property in that suit. The said injunction order is still subsisting. By merely alleging that there is a boundary dispute, the petitioners are trying to mislead the court and get orders by suppressing about the filing of this suit. It is submitted that there is no boundary dispute at all and the said contention is raised by the petitioners only as a ruse to enable them to grab the respondents land and harass them. These respondents have no right, title or interest in the land falling in Sy.No.27/2 of Guttala Begumpet Village and submit that the petitioners likewise cannot claim any land in Sy.No.27/1 of the said village.” The learned Single Judge referred to the pleadings of the parties and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following observations: “A perusal of the impugned G.O., would show that the Government regularized/allotted the land in favour of respondents 4 to 16 in respect of survey No.27/1 of Guttala Begumpet Village. Admittedly the petitioners purchased plot Nos.5 and 8 to 13 comprised in survey No.27/2. Therefore, they cannot have any grievance if the land in survey No.27/1 is allotted to the respondents. Further, it is averred in the counter affidavit of respondents 11 and 15 that when the petitioners made attempts to occupy the land in survey No.27/1, they filed O.S.No.2303 of 2006 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and obtained an order of ad interim injunction in I.A.No.3794 of 2006 dated 17.10.2006. This is not denied by the petitioners. If the petitioners have any grievance that the respondents 4 to 16, who purchased the property in survey No.27/1, and there is any threat to the possession of the petitioners in survey No.27/2, their remedy is to agitate the matter in the Civil Court. In this writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.” Shri T. Sharat, learned counsel for the appellants referred to G.O.Ms.No.455, d a te d 29-7-2002 and argued that allotment of the so-called excess land to respondent Nos.4 to 16 is liable to be annulled because none of them was occupying the land on the date of issue of G.O. or actual allotment. He also referred to the averments contained in the affidavit of Shri P. Ravinder Reddy and argued that once possession of the land comprised in Survey No.27/1 had been taken over by the State Government, the same could not be allotted to respondent Nos.4 to 16 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29-7-2002. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants have the locus to question the allotment made to respondent Nos.4 to 16 because the latter have filed suit and succeeded in persuading the trial court to pass an order of injunction. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel and carefully scanned the record. In our opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as a frivolous piece of litigation. Admittedly, the land allotted to respondent Nos.4 to 16 under Section 23 (4) falls in Survey No.27/1, whereas the land purchased by the appellants from the General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri Kummari Rajaiah falls in Survey No.27/2. The appellants are neither pattadars nor they have laid any claim over the land comprised in Survey No.27/1. Therefore, they do not have the locus to question the allotment made to respondent Nos.4 to 16 on the ground that the same is ultra vires the provisions of the Act or G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 27-9-2002. In our considered view, the appellants, who do not have anything to do with the land comprised in Survey No.27/1, have no right to seek annulment of G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 10-5-2006. It is also borne out from the record that the writ petition was filed by the appellants almost at the same time when respondent Nos.4 to 16 filed suit for permanent injunction in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District with an allegation that the petitioners were trying to forcibly take possession of the land with the help of anti-social elements. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the proceedings initiated by the appellants for cancellation of allotment made under Section 23 (4) of the Act is a part of their larger strategy to somehow or the other grab the land comprised in Survey No.27/1. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. For filing a frivolous writ petition and appeal, the appellants are saddled with costs of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be deposited with Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority (for short, ‘the Authority’) within one month from today. The Member Secretary of the Authority is directed to inform the Court in writing whether or not the appellants have deposited the amount of costs so that, if it becomes necessary, the Court may issue direction for recovery of the amount of costs as arrears of land revenue. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No.242 of 2007 filed by the appellants for raising additional grounds in support of the appeal and WAMP No.625 of 2007 filed by them for suspending the operation of G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 10-5- 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J April 20, 2007