High Court · 2025

1. R.Sai Kumar, S/o. late R Raghavulu, aged -about 48 years' er.in"sJ, Resident ofl-a-eoig,-trrtinister Rolad, Nallagutta' Secunderabad 2. R.Ramesh, S/o.late R.Raghavuiu, ag-ed about 46 years' . Occupation Business, Resrdent or i a-btij, t/-inisterhoad Nallagutta, secunderabad. 3. A.Srinivas. S/o.late R.Raghavulu, aged lbout 49 years' Occupation . " 'E.provJ", desident or ild_gol5, rvrinisier Road. Naliagutta, secunderabad Occupation Private . ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat Buildings, HYderabad

2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Secunderabad Division' $ecunderabad' AP 3. The Dv. Tahsildar' officer of the Tahsildar, Secunderabad, Mandal, Flydera6ad District, AP ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff idavit f iled therewith, the High Court may be pleasedtoissueawritorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writofmandamusdeclaringtheproceedingsNo.B/1141t2011dated5.1.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal' arbitrary' contrary to law and ViolativeofArticlel4and3004oftheConstitutionoflndiaandconsequently,set aside the same. a') l.A. NO:1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO:'l 616 0F 20121 Petition under section 151 Cpc praying that in the circLmstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court m ay be preased to suspend the operat on of the impugned the proceedings No B/l 14112011 5.1.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent resltgndents dispossess the petitioners in respect situate at No.'1-B-30/3, Minister Rcad, Nailagutta, above writ patition by directing the ol their property HouQe Sgcunderabad pr:nding disposal of the not to CounsFl for the pqtitioners: SRt G,SANJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondqnts: Gp FOR ASSTGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER I. t:: THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR , AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P'SREE SUDHA z w.P. No.1298 of 2OL2 </ ORDER ftter Hon'bte Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) . Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents and perused the record. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that their father 2. was arrayed as 7h respondent in LGC'No' 104 of 1990 t-rled by the respondents-State before the Special Court, to declare the respondents therein as land grabbers of land in survey No 43/p of Bholakapur (MCH) Village, Secunderabad Mandal of Hyderabad District; that their father during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings had deceased on 07 1O'1996; and that the petitioners herein, who are the legal heirs of the 7ft respondent in the aforesaid proceeding, are not aware of the said proceedings before the Special Court, and as such the order of the Special Court does not bind them; and thus' sought for declaration to the aforesaid affect'

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appeanng on behalf of responclents submits that the petitioners' father' who was arrayed as 7th respondent in the aforementioned LGC u 2 proceedings had remained ex_parte and as such, it is not open for the peti -ioners now to claim of not being aware r)f the said proceedings

4. Learn,:d Government pleader would further st.bmit that the State had filed an application before the Sipeci:rl Court to declarr: ther rg5p6nit.nts therein as land grabbers. and the respondents had set up a plea of they perfecring title to the subjecr. oroF erty by way of adverse possession ancl the said claim ,.r,as r,jected by the Special Court noti.g the rein that respon<lent lrlos.3, 17 & 1g in the aforesaid LGC hav,. claimed ti tle to the su bject property having acquired the same ny rrvay of registereit sa le deed, and thus both the pleas of titLe to the subject prooerty under registered sale deecl and adverse possession ar,r mutually exclusive.

5. Le arned Government pleader would further cont()nd that since, the Special Court having found the respondents being in illegal possess ion of the land belonging to the Gor.ernmc nt, they are declared eu; land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(b) & (e) of the A.F,. Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, i982 (f,:>r short 'the Act').

6. Learned Sovernment pleader further contends thar, since, the petitioners, iather was arrayed as party respondent in the 3 LGC proceedings and was set ex-parte during his lifetime' it is not open for the petitioners now to take the piea of the aforesaid order of the Special Court is not binding on them and thus' seeks for dismissal of the writ petltlon' 7 We have taken note of the respective submissions made 8- Though the petitioners claim that their father having deceased in the month of October, tgg6' it is to be noted that in the proceedings initiated by the State uide LGC No'1O4 of 1990' it was alleged that land to an extent of 4147 sq' mtrs' ' of Shikam Talab in survey No 43 of Bholakpur Village' Secunderabad Mandal of Hyderabad District' was grabbed by oneRameshDhandaand,23others,whereinlhepetitioner's father was arrayed as 7th respondent therein' g. Further, a pemsal of the order of the Special Court would also show that the proceedings in the aforementioned LGC commenced on 29.06.lggo by issuing notices to the respondents therein; that a notihcation was also issued inviting objections, if any, from the persons interested, by publishing the same in A.P. Gazette Part-II Extraordinary No 163' d,t.O2.O7.1ggO; that thereafter, the Special Court having not received any objections had proceeded with the matter and the I 4 petitioners' father, who was arrayed as 7s resp<:ndent, was set ex-parte along with respondent Nos.6, 9, 11 to i6 and 2l to 24. 1,1. The other respondent in [he aforemcnticrned LGC viz., Rarnesh Dhanda, who had also deceased dr_rring tte pendency of the LC)(1, was duly represented by legal ,eeirs, who came on reccrrd rn O7.IO.2OO9, had contested the clainL of the State befc,re the Special Court as contesting responclent

11. The Special Court, by considering the documents hled by the contesting parties, and also the oral eviCencc adfluced, had held th: t the land on the northern side of the railu,ay track, rvhrch is the disputed land, forms part and parcel of survey No.43 of Bholakpur Village and it is undoub:edly Sihikam Talab; anrl that [he respondents in the said I_GC rtre in illegal po:;s,lssion of the land belonging to the Gor.ernmr.nt and thus, der:larecl them as land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) tk (e) of the Act.

12. Thr: said findings recorded by the Special Court while deciding the LGC is based on the material placed before the CoLrrl .

13. Further, it is also to be noted that it is not the case of the peti tioner,; that the Special Court had failed to ,.;onsider the t t 5 relevant material as placed before it and considered irrelevant material to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion In the absence of the petitioners placing any material on 1 4 . the aforesaid two crucial aspects' it is to be noted that the scope of the present Writ Petition hled against the order of the Special Court in LGC is limited and to consider the aforesaid issues raised, the present writ petition cannot be converted into an appeal against the order of the Special Court passed in LGC as has been held by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of AndhraPradeshinY.Jangamma&othersVs.Specialcoul.tunder A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act & anothert after referring to fhe decisions of the Apex Court in Konda La,kshmon Bapuii Vs' Gout. of A-P. & Othersz, Stat/- of A'P' Vs' P'V'Hdnufiifunthd R(Io (Dead) through I.Rs & anothef and A'P'Housing Board Vs' Mohsmmod Sadoitutlo,h & Othcr# '

15. For the aforesaid reasons' this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for this Court to interfere with the order of the Special Court in LGC'No 1O4 of 1990' I ' )00g ( 1 2 ) A PC K 00 l 3r order dated 3 l - 12-2009 passed in w P No 4095 o12000 '(2002) i scc 258 r {2003) l0 SCC 12l l b."d;:;;;;.; court dated I l-04-2007 in Appeal (civil) No '3942 ot 2ooz I I t 5

16. Ar:cor, ngly, this Writ petition fails and is; dismissed No order as to c osts 77 . (lonse quently, miscellaneous petitions pendinr3, if any, shall stand c losed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. I..AKSHMI BABU AS$SiANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI G SANJAY KUt\4AR, Advocate topUCl 2. Two CCs to Q[, FOR ASSIGNIMENT, High Court for thr: State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OLIT] \

3. Two CD Cttpier; BSR BS t* t HIGH COURT DATED: 1710212025 ORDER WP.No.1298 of 2012 ,i ).,. t' 0 I Rpl 20ZI

1. t o c q p,tr, . :' . .y'' i:-.-_::-- -=/ .t* ;:) / DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a5 ? \