High Court · 2025

The state of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by its Tahasirdar Musheerabad trirandal, Hyderabad tv'lr. P. Mohan, S/o Late P. Narsimha No' 12-11-376' Upparabasthi Warasiguda, Secunderaoao Mr. P. Pandu, S/o P' Narsimh aNo 12-11-376' Upparabasthi Warasiguda' Secunderabad

4. P. Subhash, S/o. Late P' Narsimha No' 12-11-376' Upparabasthi ' waiiiiguoa, Secunderabad l\4r. P. Govind, S/o. Late P' Narsimha No' 12-11-376' Upparabasthi Waiasiguda, Secunderabad Smt. M. Nirmala, W/o'Krishna No' 12-1'1-376' Upparabasthi Warasiguda' Secunderabad 5

7. Smt. M. Bala Tripura Sundari' W/o Sri JM ' XU.i*"di. College Hospital Hyderabad' Fl/ Waiasguua, Secunderabad ohan T o. 12-1 ypist in 1-376, Government Upparabasthi Oltice 254, 8 Ilfi ,J33."J"i'#3!:E?:r(.:'r:J,il',f ,.fi il,ro'if o"Srpsoration'Resd " il:?n*q ru ff ,,,o,"H,?!B], lF p,,r""{ "i!:;ff{#::3Bi;#,#f 11 b "*? Jo J l:ffi pJi, " f_?rp,o ra ti o n L td, ;::hril_*;L#^il*nir:?,"diHr?i,,",i,i II Smr. Padmairtha D/o p.Mohan, rv/o u.)uresh Kumar- Aged jTyears. Occ: llouse Wife, R io H.No. 12- l t-i 76. Warasiguda. Sec ur rderabail_ Il S.ri.P.l(ran Kumnr S/o Lare p.Vohen. years. Occ: Ilusincss, *F"9.1,f Rio H.No. l2_Ll_376. Warasiguda. Secundeiabad Ii Sml. Mea Shilpa t),o l,.l\lolpn w/o. p.Nlresh Ktrmar. Aged: j0 years. (lcc. Ilousc Wile, tuo H.No. I2_t t_tl6 WaresiSud:. St.cun.ilr-ebaij t^,:l;*l-l Kunar. s/o Larc p.tr,4oha.r, .) years. Occ: Busir:css, :F.y. '. R./o FI.No. 12_| _376 Warasiguda. Sccunderabad 't I5 P.Swerha. [)16; ,1. p.lrlohan, Aged : lj years. oec: Sludent, R /o H.No. t 2- I 1 -..t 7tr Warariguda. Secrrndcrabad RR I I to 15 are hrought on record as L.Rs. of deceased Respondent No.2 as per Couft Order datedl6_0 2-2Oi in \\.pMp No. 2635 of 2012. ...RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in r; p e ased to ss ue,, ::J',::,J:, J::::"H,?Jjl ; l. lJJ, :,::] J*, certiorari' ca' for the records rerating to the order dt., 18-g-2009 in rA No. 694 0f 2009 in tA No. 48 of 200{ under Land Grabbing,",.";,;,:;t^]H;:j:npassed bv the speciar court r same and further direct the ",0 ", / ) Special Court und passed in WP No' er the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act to implement the orders 2037 5 of 1 99g without any further delay' l.A. NO :1 OF 2009(WPM P. NO:3 2243 0 F 20q9) petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in lA No 694 of 2009 dt 18-8-2009 on the file of the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act' counsel for the Petitioner : SRI3#?]0rtf"T$isenior counsel Counsel forthe Respondent no'1 : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent no'2 to 6 : Counsel for the Respondents No'8&9 : SRI THOOM SRINIVAS' SC FOR IOC Counsel for the Respondent no'7 : SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent no'10 : SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No'11to15 : The Court made the following: ORDER E t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA tv.P.No.247a3 0F 2009 ORD ER (per lJon'ble Srl Justrce T.Vitod Kumar) This Writ petition is hled being aggrieved .by the order, dt.1g.Og.2OO9, in IA.No.694 of 2OO9 in IA.No.4g of 2008 in LGC.No.2 of 1995 passed by the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, lgg2(foe short .the ActJ at Hyderabad

2. The petitior-rers herein :ue the respondents in the underlying interlocutory application and petitioners in IA.No.4g of 200g and applicants in LGC.No.2 of 1995

3. The 1"t respondent herein interlocutory application. is the petitioner in t1le underlying

4. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt K.Uda;.asri, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent/rs petitioner, sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.g &9, Sri Vivek Jait_r, learned counsel for 7tr. respondent, and the stalding counsel for GHMC for lOe respondent.

5. The case of the writ petitioners, in brief, is that they have fi1ed LGC.No.2 of 1995 as applica:tts agarnst the acts of respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein in grabbing thc plot of lar-rd of the petitioners bearing plot No.4 in survey No.52/14 of Miyakunta Village, Namalagundu, Sccunderabad, during I 2 Jaluar5r, 1985, and thus are required to be declared as land grabbers and the application schedule property before the Special Court to be delivered back to t-Ilern It is the furtller case of the petitioners before the Special Court that 6. respondent Nos.g & g herein were aiding the grabbers of the aforesaid plot/property by sanctioning them with the dealership of supplyrng and storing domestic LPG Gas' in spite of bekrg issued wlth a legal notice' dt.2g.ro.rgg4, not to grant license or dealership to the respondents, as the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the subject property' and the 2"d respondent herein by creating false documents has grabbed the plot of the petitioners along vnth adjacent plot' It is also the further case of the petitioners that the loth respondent 7. herein was impreaded as formar party, who had rejected the appricarion to the respondents 2 to 7 rrereit for granting trade license for distribution of gas cylinders in the domestlc area and in spite of the 1Os respondeni rcjecting the application made by respondents No 2 to 7 herein' the said respondcnts arc unauthor2edly and unla*{ully carrying on the LPG gas supply ar-rd storage business from the grabbed premises tili date' without any trade license' Petitioners further contend that the Special Court by taking cognizance 8. of the application frled by them' had got published a notification as required of Section 8 of the Act in the AP Gazette Part-ll under sub-section(6) Extraordinary No'67, dt.20.O2.1995 including arr Errata to the said Notihcation in AP Gazette Part-II Extlaordinary No'7o,dt'15 03 1997' invitrng objections, if any, for the Special Court to take cognizance of Lhe aforesaid CASC l 3 9' Petitioners further contend that pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued by the Special Court no objections have been received from aly corner and the Special Court proceeded with the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners herein along wth alother application filed by the neibouring plot Owners uide LGC.No.746 of 1994.

10. It is contended by the petitioners that on the Special Court taking cognizance of both the applications hled ulde LGC.No.146 of 7994 and, LGC.No.2 of 1995, the same were referred to Manda_l Revenue Oflicer(MRO) for verification under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act; ald that the MRO had submitted his report, which was marked through MRO. Musheerabad, as Ex. C 1. 11 Petitioners further contend that the Special Court proceeded with both the applications taken on record, ulde LGC.No.14 6 of |994 and LGC.No.2 of 1995, together, wherein except the 2na respondent herein, who was arrayed as l"t respondent tr'rerein' other respondents remained ex-parte, a.d on beharf of the petitioners herein/ applicants before the Special Court, (11) people were examined as pW1 to pwl l and Exs.Al to A100 were marked, whrle on behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and Ex.B 1 to B 1 I were marked 12- The Special Court examined MRO, Momeenpet, who worked earlier as MRO, Musheerabad and Deputy Director Survey and Lald Records, who was appointed as survey commissioner were examined a cw1 to cw2 af,d Exs.Xl to X33 and Exs.C 1 to C3 were marked. I 4

13. Petitioners further contend that the Special Court' however' by considering ttre claim made by the petitloners herein as applicants in the LGC.No.2 of 1995, as to their plot of lald being forming part of Survey No.52/ 14 of Miayapur Viliage' Namalagr"rndu' Mylargadda' Secunderabad' however, while holding the respondent Nos'2 to 7 herein having grabbed thc 1and, rejected the claim of the petitioners of the subject land beirrg part of Miyakunta, and on the otfier hand held that the subject lald forms part of Town Survey No. 1 of Jamrstanpur Village'

14. Petitioners further contend that being aggrieved by the aforesa.id or<ler of the Special Court, whrle holding the respondents No'2 to 7 herein as land grabbers, however, rejecting the ciarm of the petitioners of the subject 1ar-rd as forming part of Sy.No 5 2l 14 of Miyak:unta' the petitioners have hled a Writ Petition before this Cotrt uide WP'No'20375 of 1999 ald a Division Bench of this Court by its order, dt'09 08'2006' took note of the fact that bcfore thc Special Court, a Commissioner was appointed' who was examined as CW2' and by the report subrnitted havilg stated that the appLcation schedule property falls predominantly within the limits of Sy'No'S2i 14 of Miyakunta Village, which was part of Jamistanpur Village as per 1337 Fasli Village map' the encroachment of 65 sq. meters referred to in para 11 falls almost on the inter-village boundary whereat aL present a 40 feet wide road is situated'

15. This Court by considering the aforesaid statement made by the Commissioner by his report, as frled before the Special Court, holding that existence of Sy.No.52/14 calnot be denied, and the Special Court having erred in concluding that the property claimed by tl.e petitioners herein is situated in J-rr::istanpur Village in sy.No- 166, and thus, are not entitled to n 5 No.2 of 1995 and declaring rl aJlowing the writ petr.tion had set aside the order of the Specia_l Court o.2 of l99S by allowing the writ petition. Sy.No.S2/ 14, Miyakunta, lrled review petition uide by its detailed order, marntain the present application, in LGC.No.146 of 1994 and LGC.N 16. petitioners further contend that on this Cou setting aside the order of the Special Court in LGC. the petitioners to be the owners of plot No.4 in Namalagundu, the )na respondenr herein had Rev.WP.Mp.No.381O of 2OO7 attd rhis Court dt.O4.OZ.2OOZ, dismissed the sard review petition. 17 ' petitioners further contend that on this court dismissing the review petition filed by ttre respondent Nos 2 to 7 herein, whereby the petitioners herein were declared as o\\rners of plot No.4 in Sy.No.S2/ 14 of Miyaltunta, Namalagundu and the respondent Nos-2 to 7 herein being declared as la,,d grabbers by tlre special court itserf in the proceedings before it uide LGC.N,.2 of 1995, the matter was carried to the Hon,ble Supreme Court uid.e SLP.Nos. 19233- 10238 of 2OO7, and the Hon,ble Supreme Court by its ordcr dtol'70'2007' rlismissed the special l-eave petitions filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein, and thus, the order of this Court in W.p.No.20375 of 1999 declaring the petitioners as the owners of plot No.4 in Sy.No.52/ 14, Miyakunta had become frna.l.

18. It is the further case of the petitioners that since, the order of this Court in Wp.No2037S of 1999 was affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing sLP' the petitioners approached thc special court and rrled a petition uide I A'No'48 of 2oo8, seeking for implementation/enforcement of the order of the High court in wp No.20375 0f lggg for delivery of re vacant possession of plot No.4 to them I I I I i I I I I I l IJ It is further contended by the pctitioners that on the petitioners frling tg. the aforesaid application, uide IA No 48 of 2008, before the Special Court' the 1* rcspoitCcrt herein had lilecl thc unclcrlying application therein purported to be under Rute 15(2) of the I?ules r/w Orclcr XXI a'nd Section i 51 of CPC cla-rming that the subject ploperty as a govcrnlnent property'

20. Petitioners furthcr contend that on the l"t respondent frling the said application, the sdrne rvas opposed by the petitioners herein' and in spite of 1[6 olrjections raised by the petitioners, the Special Court allowed the underlying application hlcd by tl-re l't respondent herein under Order XXI RulegTCPC,bynotingthatthoughthel'trcspondentherein/petitionerin the underlying application wcrc not in acLual and physical possession by virtue of irnplementalion/enforcement of the decision, they would bc dispossessed rvithin the meaning of Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, ald allowed tl'e said applicatron as maintainable by treating the l"t respondent as ciaim petitioncr under Section 47(3) R/rv Order XXI RuIe 97 & 99 of CPC'

21. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition rs {iled'

22.onbehalfofthepetitionersitiscontendedthatonthepetitioners herein filing the application initially before the Special Court claiming the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herern having grabbed the lald in piot No 4 in Sy.No.52/l4,theSpecialCourthavingissuedaNotificationwhichwas published in AP Gazette, way back on 20.02.1995, including an errata thereto on 15.03.1997, the l"t respondent herein cannot claim the subject land as government land, after a decade of initiation of the original proceedings before tJ:e Special Cou rt. t 7

23. On behalf of the petitioners it is also contended that not only the l"t respondent herein did not choose to frle any objections to the notification published in terms of Section g(6)of the Act issued by the Special Court, as published in the gazette, the application frled by the petitioners herein was also referred to the MRO, Musheerabad in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules for verifying as to whether the claim of the petitioners in the said application to be correct or not, and the MRO on verification havrng submitted a report, which is marked by the Special Court as Ex.C I, the claim of the l"t respondent now that the subject larid is a government land and by virtue of the implementation of the order of this court in w.p.No.20375 0f lggg fired against an order in LGC.No.2 of 1995, they would be disposscssed, cannot be accepted as a valid clarm

24. On behalf of the petitioner.s it is a-lso contended that the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Central Survey Office, who was appointed as Commissioner in the LGC.No. 146 of l994ard LGC.No.2 of 1995 to localize the application schedule land, having submitted his report, which was marked as Ex.Xlt by the Special Court, and since, the same has been duly considerecl by the Division Bench of this Court in its order in 1999 arrd W.p.Nos. 16223 and t992T of 1999, the l"t WP.No.20375 of respondent calnot be permitted to raise the issue once_again. 25 0n behalf of the petitioners it is contended that this court while disposing of the above mentioned writ petition filed against the order i,, LGC. No. 146 of 1994 arld LGC.No.2 of 1995, by the petitioners a,,d the neighbouring p10t owners, and also dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 7 ...ere',t, though the Town Survey & Lald Records(TSLR) I I l I I I i t i 8 registered in Column 7 the subject lalt1 as Sarkari' in column 1O it is shown as University, ald in column 23' t,rre petitioners' predecessors' narne ie'' Ma-1lesham and Eshwaraiah are shown' 26. On behalf of the petitioners it ;s aiso contendctl that it is not the University, q'hich has initiated any proceedings claiming the petitioners having encroached the land of the University' if at all there is any alleged grabbing, could have initiated proceedings on their own' and i[ is not for thc 1$ respondent hereir to claim that sincc' the said land belongs to Osmania University,itca'rrmarntaintheunrlerlyinginterlocutoryappiication.

27. On behalf of the petiLioners it is also contended that in a civil suit frlcd uide O.S.No.54/ 1 of 1955, on thc frle of Munsiff(Garbi) 'laluq' Hyderabad District, it has bcen categorically recordcd as under: "Osmania Uniuersitg had exhibited no interest in' this case ond not get appliecl to be impteaded in the sutt" ' 2a. PetiLioners further contend that the subject plots purchased by them werc mad.e out of plot No 30, which was allottcd tn Lieu of acquiring the lands for the University and it is for the sald reason' the Osmania University by itself clid not initiate any action, as the University is clear that the same forms part of the la-nd that was allotted in lieu of the lands acquired' and thelefore' theStatecannotpleadtheCaSeoftheUr-riversity,whichitselfdidnottakeaIly actionevenaswaybackasintheyearlg55bygettingitselfimpleadedinthe aforementionecl suit, lbr the 1"t respondent now to claim of the existence of Government's interest in the subject land' thereby being entitled to maintain the claim petition under Order XXI Rule 97 Lo 99 of CPC' and the Special Court having allowed the same' ./ a 29 9 Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing for 1"t respondent would submit that the subject land government land, and that the said University_ ln survey lald is in Nos. 165, 166 & 167 is possession of Osmalia 30- Learned Government pleader would further contend that between l96a-69 till 198 1, the subject land/plot No.4 was part of the iand in survey No.166, which is shown in the TSLR as government land. 31. Learned Government pleader would further submit that since, the subject land is shown in TSLR as government land, as b1. the application filed b1' the petitioners herein before the Special court uide IA.No.4sg of 200g seeking implementation of the order of the Court in W.p.No.203 ZS of 1999, would result in the government interest in the subject land being affected, the lst respondent is entitled to maintain the underlfng application, a,,d that the Special court having regard to the provisions of cpc rightly allowed the same, and thus, seeks for clismissal of the writ petition. 32. We have taken note of the respective submissions made 33. Firstly, it is to be noted that the petitioner.s in the underlying application is seeking to lay ciaim on the subject rand on the basis of entries in the TSLR Insofar as the entries in TSLR and the claims made on the basis of the said entry, the said issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the this Apex Court in case of State oJ A.p. as. Hgderabad Potteries hrt. Ltd., & Anr.l, wherein the Honbre Supreme court had held that since, TSLR is the record maintained by the State authorities, the same cannot be relied for accepting the claim. '1zoro; s scc :sz 1 I I I 1i i I i I I 1, I I I l : t { r I t; i a t , t t r I * , * I I J 10

34. Further, it is also to be noted that when an application under Scction S(1) of the Act is frled by arry person claiming himself to be the owner of particular land ancl alleging that the said land is grabbed by t1le persons named fur the application, on cognizance of such application being taken by the Special Court, the sarle are referred to loca1 inspection or verifrcaLion or both by the MRO having jurisdiction over the area or by any ofhcer of thc goverr-rment auttrorized by the Court in this behalf' The object bchind referring such application for verihcation by the MRO is stated in Rule 6(2) of the Rules, whereby the MRO or other ofhcer' is required to verify with reference to fevenue record as to the correctness of lhe statements made in the applicatiorr, i.e', i) facts relating to relationship' ii) actual posscssior-r and use of the land conccrned' and iii) such other parliculars and informalion as would be useful to the Court to arrive at a corect decision on the claim made in the said aPPlication ' 35. If one takes note of the aforesaid purpose of verifrcation required to be undertaken by the MRO, it wourd be clear that no apprication can be allowed to be hled by a person by mereiy claiming himself to bc a owner in respect of a land,andthepersonnamedintheapplicationhavinggrabbedthesaidland.

36. Ttre verifrcation as required. to be unrlertaken by the MRO being a comprehensive exercise as to whether the statement made in the applicaLion as to ownership or otherwise is correct or not, as well as the actual possession of the said land, - with reference to the revenue record, the MRO, who is required to submit a report within (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the order with reference to the special court is not only required to certify tl e correctness of the statement, but is also required to furnish copies of the I 1 I i 1 I 1 I i t I I i I I i I : 17 extracts of the government records to show the survey numbers and sub division numbers, proof of possession, ownership and use of the rand. and payment of dues to the government.

37. If only the clalm of the 1"t respondent herein now in the underilng application that the subject la,d is recorded as sarkari and is government lard, the MRO in his report, submitted to the Special Court marked as Ex.C1, would have mentioned the same. On the otier hald, the MRO did not make any claim with regard to the subject land being a Go\.emment La,d and neither the petitioners herein nor the respondent Nos.2 to 7, who are alleged to have grabbed the subject land, not hawing any tifle to claim the same, as the subject land belongs to the Government. 38. Further it is also to be noted that the Deputy Director, who was examined as pW2 before the Special Court and submitted a report with regard to the clarm of the petitioners of their land being forming part of Sy.No.52/ 14 of Miyakunta Village, which is carved out of survey No.l66 0f Jamistanpur village, also did not state that the subject land to be government land.

39. on the other ha,d, the documents, which were marked before the Special court by the petitioners herein and also by the court itself, shows the subject land forming part of large extent of plot bearing No.3O, which has been subdivided into 39 plots and allotted to larrd owners, whose land has been acquired for the purpose of Osmania University. Thus, the 1"t respondent persisting with the claim that the subject rand is shown as Sarkari, and as such entitled to make a craim to the subject ra,d by 1iling the under\ring interlocutory application, would only have to be construed as the t2 1$ respondent rnaking claims to the land' which actually does not belong to it' by rnaking entries in thc TSLR marntained by themselves' 40. Further, it is also to be noted that since' the subject lancl forms part ol osmania University and the Uni'vcrsity by itself having rrot taken any action, as the University was clear that the subject plots arb made out of large extent of plot No.3O allotted to the land losers from whom the land has been acquired for ttre University, the State on its own cannot claim the subject lald as government, for it to be entitlccl to maintain the petitipn under Order XXI Rule 97-99 of CFC

41. It is also to be noted that clairn pctitions undcr Order XXI Rulc 97-99 CPC can be presented by third parties' who come in possession of thc subject lald during the pendency of the proceedings' by cstablishing themselves either as bonaftdepurchasers and the order' executiorr of r'r'hich is sought' as having obtained behind their back without making them as parties' 42. In thc present case, on the petitioners approaching the Speciai Court by lrling application, the Special Court on taking cognizance' firstlg havitg issued a notification published in the AP Gazette inviting objectrons and secondlg,rnaking reference to the MRO for verification as required under Rule 6 of the Rules, and the said MRO having submitted his report' which does not show as to existeuce of any claim of the government, the sudden change of mind by the l"t respondent herein by filing the underlying application in an application filed by the petitioners uide 1'A No'48 of 2008 in LGC'No 2 of 1995 seeking implementation of ttre order of this Court in WP'No 20375 of 1999' whereby the order of the Special Court in LGC No'2 of 1995 was set aside' can only be seen as al afterttrought to nullify the effect of the order of this Court I t: I I I i t ! I I I I I II,I I I I T ,l t .! I I I I I ! : I I i -) 13 in the aforesaid writ petition, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLp fired by the unofficial respondents herein. 43. It is also important to note that during the pendency of the proceedings before thc Spccial Court from 1995 till filing of the under\ring application belore the Spccia-l Court in the year 2009, the 1st respondent never raised its little hnger wr th regard to the claim of the petitioners with respect to the subject land as being a government land, and thus, not being entitled to be gralted with any sort of relief 44 It is arso pertinent to note that in the application fired by the petitioners herein initially before the special court as werl as in the writ petition filed against the order of tl.re Special court, the state through its instrumcntalities, namely thc Addl. Commissioner and Special Ofhcer of Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, who were arrayed as parties, at no point of time had raised any objection as to the subject la,d being a government land a,d the petitioners herein not havi.g any right, interest to claim the said rand. Thus, this court is of the view that it is not open to the 1", respondent after a lapse of lS years of the petitioners herein initiating proceedings before the Special court to declare the respondent Nos.2 to 7 as land grabbers, to claim that the subject land is a government lald, and as such, the petitioners cannot seek implementation/enforcement of the order of tJlis court in w.p.No.2o375 of t999.

45. Though a farnt submission is made by the learned Government pleader that since, the lald belongs to Osmalia University, the State can maintain their claim, it is to be noted that the University itserf is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and is entitled to maintain 1 i ', i 1 74 .....j-..: :a; petitions by itself, if there is any alleged action of lald grabbing by the petitioners herein.

46. Further, it is not shown to this Court of the University by itself initiating any action or authorizing the 1"t respondent herein to initiate action against the petitioners, for them to claim that the sarcl proceedings are at the behest of the Osmalia University. 47 . if at ali, ttre Osmania University is aggrieved by the action of the petitioners herein, they ought to have ini[iated action and admittedly, no such action has been initiated.

48. Further, it would not be out of place to note that thc Osmalia University has its os,rr establishment with zrn Estate Offrcer and Law Officer taking care of flre lands acquired ald put in posscssion of the University :rnd thus, it is not open for the ls respondent to claim that the underlying application having been hled by them to protect the land of the University, even if it be so.

49. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the considered view that the Special Court had erred in allowing the underlying application frled by the 1't respondent herein, seeking to claim the subject land as government la-nd.

50. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is a-llowed; the order of the Special Court, dt.18.08.2009, in IA.No.694 of 2009 in IA.No.48 of 2008 in LGC.No.2 of 1995 is set aside. No order as to costs. { 15 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed , / '/ . witness THE H.N.'BLE THE Aaitr,ic criiEi.lusrrce suJoy pAUL, on this That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Mondav, Tne l,ri"ih-D;;d;; iilo rnousano And rwenty Five //TRUE COPYII SD.K.SREERAMA MURTHY EPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Annie Besant Road.-pra'bha Dd;i, ffi;;';i.ido"dis

1. The Tahasildar, Musheerabad Mandal, State of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad 2. The Reqional [\rlanaoer (L-p.9.), lndian Oit Corporation, Regd. Office 254, 3. The Senior Divisionat Malagql (L.p.c.), lndian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, I ZO, Znri'ftcior, S_-d. RilA'#underabad_500 003 4 The Additional Commissioner and Special Officer, Municipal Corporation . Hyderabad (presenlv Greater Hydeia-#-d M;;l;;p;l C;rr;;t#i" -," S e c u n d e ra ba d D i vi s i ir n, v i ie o pZ r I iI's-""Jr"n li L rJ 6,io' 5. One CC to SMT.K.UDAYA SRt, Advocate. IOPUCI 6. TworCCs to cp FOR ASS|GNMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana. 7. One CC to SRI THOOtvl SRIN|VAS, SC for lndian Oil Corporation. tOpUCl B. One CC to SRt VTVEK JAIN, Advocate. tOpUCl 9 One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUIVAR, SC FOR GHMC. tOpUCl 'l0.Two CD Copies BSK LS Y{-- HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 { t (r!E STATE \-l [ \ St'P 86 '* t t( ORDER WP.No.24783 of 2009 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \? YL- ,'(4\zby