The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Srinivas Velagapudi The Court made the following: ORDER , -*tr--,., .- --.- THE IION']}LIT SRI JUSTIC .T.VINOD KUMAR CIVII, RIiVISION Pt]'I-I'I'I N No.2349 ot 2019 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 29-08-2019 passed in t.A,No.9l of 2019 in I-GOP No.333 of 20 11 on the file of the SPccial Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and District and Sessions Judge at Nizamababad, whcrcbl" thc unclcllr i rq In tcrlocutorl .\PPlication filed under Section 153 I/ra' Scction li CI)C lor arncndmcnt of the prayer in the LGOP was disrnisscd.

2. The petitioner hcrein is tlic' a plicant in thc trnderlYing Interlocutory Application and applican in thc L(iOP

3. For the sake of convenierlcc. tlrc artics r.r ill bc rcll'r'rcd to as per their alray in thc l.CO{) 'lhe pctitioner had tltcd thc uncicrl 4 ing l.COl' clainrirtq that she has purchased the rcsidcntiul P ot bcarins No.l-.] rvith measurements 50 x 40.5 ii situatcd a Vcercslralinga nr Park, Old Ilus Stand, Bodhan J'owu llont onc z\.Venkatcsu arltr under an agreement ol sale tlatcd I I -()S- l 86r tlrtt sirc prricl Pafl 2 consideration upon entering into the agreementl and that shc rvas put in possession of the subject plot

5. It is the case of the petitioner that on causing public notice by the 3'd respondent dated |9-02-2OOO in the news papcrs calling for objection in relation to purchase of the petition schcdule propefly, the petitioner got a reply issued on l5-03-2000 inlonning that the a{bresaid propefty was sold to her by one A.Venkateswarlu on I 1-08- r 986.

6. It is the lurther case of the petitioner that subscqucntly thc 3"r respondent had filed a suit vide O.S.No.88 of 2000 for specific pelfbrrnance of agreement of sale dated 10-02-1999 cntered into br' A. \'cnk atesu,arlu. which is subsequent to the agtectneut ol- salc datcd ll-08-1996 ctttcred into with hcr; and thal" thc albresaid strit li lcd bl 3 rcspondcnt hercin had ended in disnrissal on 0e- t2-2003

7. lt is the turlher casc of the petitioner that r.i4.rile she rvas put in possession o I the subject plot bearing No.43 upon errtering into agreement o[' sale, petitioner's vendot' had executed a gift deed on l0-0-j-1009 irr lavolil of I'' respondent, being tuirror rcprese ntccl try J 2nd respondent, withoul. detivering p ssession. [t is the lurther contention of the petitioner that the after the petitioner's vendor having dcceased, the respondenls avc lraudulently obtained construction permission daled 26-04- 010 and senl labour to the subject plot for commencemcnt o1'cot-t tluction u'ork

8. -l'hus, petitioner contends th t thc respondents have dispossessed the petitioner by crirni a[ force from the schedule property and as such, she filed the L P to declare the gift deed executed by petitioner's vendor date 30-03-2009 as illegal, void and unentbrceable and to cvict thc rc pondcnts tiour thc schcdulc property by declaring then.r as land 't bbcr-s ancl a lso dernolishirttt thc existing struct.ures raiscd thcrcin b dclir cr irrq r acrnL sitc oi' ti.tc- schedule property to the petitioncr'.

9. tt is the further case of the petiti ner that u'hilc the alolesaid LGOP fited is pending consideration, she has titcd the undcrlyine I rlterloc utory Application secking 1.^'.r ission to pcrntit her to rnake amendmcnts to the LGOP bY addin the w'ords "in titte" in thc 4'r' linc liom bottorn on pagc 5 ol l L)[' rnci also add pra]'e r to dcclare the petitioner herein as absol tc o\\ ncr ol' the application 1 schedule propefty as the main prayer by renumbeiing the prayers in the LGOP

10. It is contended by the petitioner that the trial Court without considering that thc albresaid amendrncnt sought for, is not going to change the nature of the procceding before it, and on the other hand, rvould avoid rnultiplicity of litigation, had erroneously dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application. ll. It is also contended by the petitioner that the trial Court had erroneously obsen,ed that the underlying Interlocutory Application is tlled attcr rrorc than E ycars, without noticing that thc amcndrnent souglrL on ly a typographical crror, and the amcndrlcnt is reqtrirccl lbr precise adjudication of thc /rs' belbr.c iL inasmuch zls Lllc question as to whether the agreement of sale can be considercd as a concluded contract or not can be gone into during the trial. [-hus, petitioner contends that the order ofthe trial Corrrt in rc-iectinq thc urrderlvin_a Interlocutory Application is tiable to be sct asidc ll. Pcr contru. lcarned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondcnts rror-rld subnrit that the case filed by the petitioner is 5 under a special enactment viz.., Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (lbr shorr 'thc Act') and is n 1.a suit cithcr tbr specific pcrfonnance or for dcclaration.

13. It is also contended that the c filed by the petitioner as LGOP under Section 8 of the Ac whereby the petitioner is rcquired to show the alleged act of I nd grabbing by respondents b-l' discharging thc initiat burden y establishing title to the ptopcrty. upon which the burdcn wou d shift on to the rcspondcnts ro provc that thcy a[c not lar-rd grabb rs in terrns ol' Scction l0 ol the Act; and that the petitioner is laiming titlc to the subject propcrl) on the basis of an agreement fsale olthe year 1986, and on thc other hand, clairns to be in ssession o{' thc application schcdulc property by way of adv rse posscssion. rvhich are nrutual ll inconsistent. ll. lt is also contcndcd on bchall l' thc lcspondcnts that thc pctitioner under thc garb of pre nt I-GOP is seeking lbr cl'-claration to declarc thc gift deed d ted 30-03-2009 executed in fhrour ol' l" respondent represented y 2.d respondcnt as illegat, r oid arrcl unenlbrceable, which relief c n only be sought bv fiting a 6 suit under Sectiorr 3l ol'thc Spccific l{elicfAct, and by the lurther anrendment sought fbr b1, the underlying Interlocutory Application, the petitioner is only converling thc scopc of the LGOP into one that of a regular suit for dcclaration, which is beyond the scope of the proceedings initiated under the Act.

15. On behallol thc rcspondents. it is further contended that the trial Court lor [hc alolcsaid r-cason and also taking note ol the fact that the undcrlying Intcrlocutory Application was filed after a period of 8 ycars altcr invoking the provision of Section 8 of the Act by filing the undcrlving lnterlocutory Application, the petitioner is sccking lbr the afolesaid amendment more so, when the LGOP is at an acivanccd stagc i.e. alter respondents filed their written statcnicnt to thc al..plicatiorr iu the I-GOP, has rightly dismisscd tlie uriclcrl-r irrq Intci locutor'1, Application

16. Lleard lcalncd counsel lbr thc pctitioner and learned counsel appearing on bcha l f o t' respondcnts, and perused the record.

17. A leadine ol thc concisc statement as appended to the application tiled b1. Llrc pcritioner under Section 8 of the Act in liot'nr-[ shoris that it i: tlrc spccillc casc o['thc petitioncr that onc 7 A.Venkaleswarlu had agreed [o s ll the Plot No.43 having measurements 50 x 40.5 ft under n, agreement of sale dated I I -08- 1986 by receiving parr consid on.

18. I3y the concise statement, the tioner had further averred that though the 3'd respondent had fil d a suit vide O.S.No.gg of 2000 against pclil-ioner's vcndor fo specific perlormancc of allcged agrccrncnt ol'sale entercd into with her dated 10-02-1999 and the sar.nc having ended in dismis in the year 2003, it is not show,n ro this Court as to why the peti oner did not take any steps o et t c re o St re SA e deed ln her d h t) our even at least thereafter, e ven thoLrgh it is c laime d that on ente ng into agreement of sale. hcr r.cndol har ing dcliver.ed posscss n to her and witling to .\cclttc sule clcccl iit an\ tirrc. It wou d be pertincnt [o note rhar though pcritioncr in response to paper publication caused by the 3"r responclent clairning to have got a ply issued, no explanation is fbrthcouiing as ro why petitioner c uld not get the sale deed rcgistcrcd in her fhvour fbr- about 9 ars thereafter i.e. till the dcath o1' pctitioner's vendor sometime shortly after execution o1' gili decd in lur our.oi l" rcsponrlenl on 3 -03-2009 r 8

19. Further, the petitioner having initiated proceedings by filing LGOP under the Act seeking to dcc[are the respondents as land grabbers, is requircd to establish her pr.ima.fac:ie titlc to the subject property in order to maintain thc ploccedings under the Act, cannot now convert the aforesaid proccedings rnto a regular suit for declaration of title and clclivery ol possession by seeking amendment under the guisc ol tr,,pographical error.

20. Since, thc LGOP filed b1' thc petilioner under the Act being specific to declare thc lcsporrrlcnts as land grabbels, the relief sought lbr by thc pt:ritiorrci Iti thr- undcrlying lntel'locutory Application would not onl_r c(rrrverr the I,GOP specifically provided to bc dcalt rvith ro consider as to olle declaration of whether the rcsponderlts arc- lilnd glabbcrs or not, to one under Specific Relief Act. It is lbr th,-- saitl rcason the trial Court having considered thc undcr.lvinq Inrcllocutor_r, Application filed after a period ol 8 _r'eals altcr !lli,rlr n! thc t-(lOl, undcl thc special enactment, had dismisscd rhc sarltc. liorvcver, obscrving that the petitionel is at libertl to {llc a suir lbr spccific performance, if it is within the limitation. ['hc sarc[ lindin.q of the trial Court, in view of 9 t: the albresaid discussion. in thc con idered view of this Court cannot bc saicl cithc-r' as pct vcrsc ol' ulfbring lrom illegality fbr being interfered with it by this Cou in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction undcr Article 227 ol'the C nstitution of India.

21. Therelore, the Civil Revision P ition as filed is devoid of merit and is accordingly disrnisscd. No costs.

22. Consequcntly, misccllancous petit ons pending, if any, shatl stand c loscd To, //TRUE OPYII SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTI OFFICER 1 Ttre Special Tribunal under the Tela (Prohibition) Acr cum principat Diiiri Nrzamabad (With records ii any) One CC to SRI B shashidhar, Advocate 2 3. One CC to SRl. Snnivas Velagapudi, Ad 4. Two CD Copies agana State Land Grabbing t and sessions Judge, oPUCI te{OPUCI Qfi' HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER CRP.No.2349 of 2019 I I )I o l45t \r .s I I 11 2WIU A r I :-:l --:-/ ('[VIL REVISION PETI]'ION IS DtSN,ltSSrrt) ?*. 4 t4,