REV.W.P.M.P.(SR) No. 128229 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

(Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) All these cases arise out of the proceedings in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Special Court) filed by one Sultan Mohinuddin seeking to declare the respondents therein as unlawful occupants and land grabbers and the said Sultan Mohinuddin is the lawful title holder of land admeasuring Ac.31.25 guntas Sy.Nos.43/1 and 45/1 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. The said L.G.C was filed on 5.7.1995. After trial, the Special Court rendered judgment on 31.12.1997 having declared that respondents 1 to 645 therein are land grabbers, directed them to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property subject to result of the appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling Authority. However, L.G.C. was dismissed so far as respondents 646, 647 and 648 are concerned.

Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 31.12.1997 of the Special Court, 234 respondents out of 645 respondents filed W.P.No.5440 of 1998 seeking to set aside the judgment in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995. The said writ petition was filed on

2.3.1998 and this Court had granted interim order of status quo on 5.3.1998 in W.P.M.P.No.6561 of 1998 in W.P.No.5440 of 1998. The said order of status quo was subsisting during the pendency of the main writ petition which was ultimately dismissed after a period of 11 years i.e., on 15.6.2009 by a Division Bench of this Court confirming the judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995, dated 31.12.1997. Thereafter, the said Sultan Mohiuddin, who was the successful party in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995 filed I.A.No.1001 of 2009 for implementing the orders passed in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995. The Special Court by order dated 17.11.2009 disposed of the said I.A. The operative portion of the said order is extracted as follows: land holder. is a surplus “The R.D.O. shall hand over vacant possession of the land subject to the orders passed under Urban Land Ceiling Act by “Competent Authority”. Even though the appeal abated, the basic order passed by the Special Officer, Competent Authority stands and that order is to the effect that the In petitioner consequence we can only order the vacant possession of the land to the extent the applicant is permitted to hold under the Urban Land Ceiling Act by the Competent Authority. It is therefore ordered that the applicant shall be put in vacant possession of the land to the extent he is found eligible to hold by the Special Court, Urban Land Ceiling Authority and that the applicant is not entitled to any land to which he has been declared as a surplus land holder.” Questioning the said order of the Special Court dated

17.11.2009, the applicant – Sultan Mohiuddin W.P.No.26022 of 2009 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 2.3.2010 allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the said order is extracted as follows:

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2009, in I.A.No.1001 of 2009 in L.G.C.No. 126 of 1995, with a direction to the the procedure Special Court prescribed under clause (1) of Rule 15 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, to enable the competent authority to implement the order, dated 31.12.1997, passed in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995. There shall be no order as to costs.

follow Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued Form- V notice vide letter No.B/965/2010, dated 29.4.2010 to the respondents to deliver the vacant possession of schedule land to the applicant – Sultan Mohinuddin. Questioning the said Form-V notice dated 29.4.2010, respondent Nos.509, 177, 627, 99 and 187 in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995, filed W.P.No.23580 of 2009. But, in the said writ petition, learned counsel appearing on their behalf filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition and accordingly W.P.No.23580 of 2009 was dismissed as withdrawn by order, dated 28.9.2010. Thereafter, another W.P.No.20873 of 2009 was filed by some other respondents in L.G.C.No.126 of 1995, questioning Form- V notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide letter

29.4.2010 as misconceived, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to judgment in W.P.No.26022 of 2009. The said W.P.No.20873 of 2009 was filed through the counsel Sri N.Bharat Babu and after advancing arguments; the case was treated as part heard. In the said writ petition, to avoid the Bench, one of the juniors of us (VE, J) was engaged seeking to implead three more respondents therein. But, as it was part heard case, the Court was inclined to hear W.P.M.P.No.28117 of 2010 and on that, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the said W.P.M.P sought permission to withdraw the said W.P.M.P and accordingly the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the said learned counsel also filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw W.P.No.20873 of 2009. Accordingly, the said writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 7.9.2010. While so, after the said disposed of W.P.No.26022 of 2009, three applications i.e., W.P.M.P.Nos.37389, 37740 and 31299 of 2010 have been filed through the counsel of the petitioners therein, namely, Sri N.Bharat Babu, Sri C.Ramachandra Raju and Sri Mahmood Ali respectively.

Apart from the said three review petitions in W.P.No.26022 of 2009, four more independent writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.25367, 26496, 25562 and 29518 of 2010 have been filed through the learned counsel Sri Mahmood Ali, Sri N.Bharat Babu and Sri C.Ramachandra Raju. Arguments were advanced in the writ petitions filed by Sri N.Bharat Babu through the learned senior counsel Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu appearing for Sri N.Bharat Babu and Sri Mahmood Ali. But, once again to avoid this Bench, Sri C.Ramachandra Raju was engaged to file review petition in W.P.No.26022 of 2009 taking advantage of the fact that the case of Sri C.Ramachandra Raju was directed not to be posted before this one of us (VE, J.). As it was being a part heard case and there is likelihood of abusing the judicial process, the earlier order not to post the cases of Sri C.Ramachandra Raju before this Bench was recalled. Therefore, the case of Sri C.Ramachandra Raju was also posted before this Court by order dated 24.11.2010.

It is the case of Sultan Mohiuddin, applicant before the L.G.C. that he has filed declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority that he is the owner of the entire L.G.C schedule property admeasuring Ac.31.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.43/1 and 45/1 of Kandikal village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District and the said declaration was enquired into by the Special Officer and the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Authority who in turn issued proceedings No.I/8790/76, dated 27.4.1988 holding that the declarant is entitled to retain 1000 sq.meters only. As against the said order, the applicant before the L.G.C. filed appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and the appellate authority in ULC Appeal No.Hyd/111/96, dated 31.1.2008 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Special Officer and Competent Authority. In the meanwhile, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act No.33 of 1976) has been repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Central Act No.15 of 1999) and the Repeal Act 1999 has been adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh by passing a resolution in the A.P. State Legislature on 27.3.2008 and accordingly the State of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated 22.4.2008 and the Repeal Act 1999 came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.3.2008.

In view of the repealing of the said Act, the Government also issued a circular Memo No.17377/UC.I(1)/ 2008-1, dated 24.4.2008 stating that all pending cases in different stages i.e., under Section 8(1), 8(4) and notifications 10(1), 10(3) and notice 10(5) shall abate. It is further instructed that all pending cases, if they have not completed proceedings under Section 10(6) shall abate. In the instant case, the Special Officer and Competent Authority issued a memo No.A6/365/09 dated 23.9.2009 to the applicant stating that the proceedings under Section 10(1) have been passed in view of the Repealing of the Act and thereby, all pending proceedings in respect of property in question abated. It is the case of the applicant in the L.G.C that he was already declared as lawful owner and the respondents therein were declared as land grabbers and they are in unlawful possession. Several contentions have also been raised about the technicalities of serving of notice by the R.D.O. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue submits that notices have been issued as required under Rules to all the respondents.

If that be so, there is no legal impediment under law for implementing the order of the Special Court in the said L.G.C as the title was already declared in favour of the applicant therein and the respondents were held to be in unlawful possession and they are land grabbers. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Altaf v. Special Court under APLG (P) Act rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad[1] wherein it was held that the judgment of the Special Court is binding on all persons having interest in such land and if any third party to the said proceedings would like to question the said order, they have a remedy to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India showing their right, title and interest in the land in question, and the party who has obtained the order from the Special Court has no right, title and interest in the property.

In the instant case, the contesting respondents have questioned the judgment of the Special Court, which has been upheld by this Court. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant Sultan Mohinuddin at length. While so, all the learned counsel appearing for various review petitions in W.P.No.26022 of 2009 filed memos seeking permission to withdraw the review petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners also filed letters/memos seeking permission to withdraw the writ petitions. However, we are not inclined to deal with the various contentions, which have already been advanced on behalf of the respective parties on the ground that the respective parties filed memos/letters seeking permission to withdraw the review petitions as well as the writ petitions. Accordingly, all the three review petitions i.e., Rev. W.P.M.P.Nos.37389, 37740 and 31299 of 2010 Rev.W.P.M.P. (SR) No.128229 2010 W.P.M.P.Nos.37741, 37742 and 37403 of 2010 W.P.No.26022 of 2009 and as well as the four writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.25367, 25562, 26496 and 29518 of 2010 are dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J. 1.12.2010 [1] 2009 (3) ALT 64 (D.B.)