Mandalapu Ramaiah v. Central Excise Officers Coop.Housing Society limited, Hanamkonda & Ors.

Judgment

- This appeal A.S.No.2754/96 and W.P.Nos.1021/99 and 6480/2004 are being disposed of by this common Judgment in view of the commonality of the subject matter.

2. Mandalapu Ramaiah, the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/86 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal, being aggrieved of negativing the relief of specific performance and only ordering the refund of amount had preferred A.S.No.2754/96 aforesaid. The aforesaid plaintiff also filed Writ Petition W.P.No.6480/2004 praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in setting apart excess land towards Roads and Parks while approving the lay-out in L.P.No.6/1975 and not releasing the excess land of 6.5% area in L.P.No.6/1975 in favour of the owner of the lay-out is Assessment Year, unreasonable and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner by releasing the excess land of 6.5% area which was earmarked towards Roads and Open spaces in respect of lay-out No.6/75 belongs to the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society, Warangal as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.C.No.C1/808/2000/761, dt.1-9- 2001 and pass such other suitable orders. The aforesaid plaintiff also filed yet another Writ Petition W.P.No.1021/99 praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.45 (New Sy.No.444, 445), 55 (new survey No.292), 114 (new survey No.275 and 408), Excise Colony, Waddepally Shsivar, Warangal by establishing Rythu Bazar, inspite of the Injunction Order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.17185/96 in A.S.No.2754/96 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the said lands by establishing Rythu Bazar till the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.2754/96 on the file of this Court and pass such other suitable orders.

3. Sri Gangaiah Naidu, the learned senior Counsel representing the appellant in A.S.No.2754/96 and the Writ Petitioner W.P.No.6480/2004 and W.P.No.1021/99 in all thoroughness and meticulously had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.133/86 aforesaid and the elaborate grounds raised in the Grounds of Appeal as Grounds 1 to 14 and would maintain that having recorded positive findings, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal is not justified in ordering refund instead of granting the principal relief prayed for i.e., the relief of specific performance. The learned senior Counsel also pointed out to the sue- motto contempt proceedings and the orders made there-under both by this Court and the Apex Court as well and would maintain that the said orders would not have bearing at all on the result of these matters. The learned senior Counsel while elaborating his submissions had brought to the notice of the Court the subsequent events and also would maintain that even if any other non-parties to the litigation would be affected, the said non-parties are entitled to agitate their rights if any by way of separate proceedings, even otherwise the doctrine of lis pendense would be applicable. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned senior Counsel pointed out to the respective

stands taken by the parties in W.P.No.6480/2004 and W.P.No.1021/99 and would maintain that even in the light of the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with suitable directions.

4. Per contra, the learned standing Counsel representing the respective respondents in the Writ Petitions had taken this Court through the affidavits filed in support of these Writ Petitions and also the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits and would maintain that since much water had flown and inasmuch as refund had been ordered, if the same to be disturbed and the principal relief of specific performance to be granted, such non-parties to the litigation and their rights would be seriously affected and prejudiced. The learned standing Counsel aforesaid also would maintain that even otherwise it would be just and proper if all those parties also are impleaded as parties for the purpose of giving an opportunity to such parties so that such parties also may explain their stand. While further elaborating submissions, the said standing Counsel also would maintain that the litigation is just a speculative litigation as can be seen from the affidavits filed in support of these Writ Petitions and the counter affidavits as well and hence the Writ Petitions are to be dismissed.

5. Heard the Counsel on record, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded in O.S.No.133/86 aforesaid and also the respective stands taken by the parties in the respective affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions aforesaid and the counter affidavits as well.

6. A.S.No.2754/96:- Before taking up further discussion, it may be appropriate to have a glance at the respective pleadings of the parties, the Issues settled, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court in nutshell.

7. Averments made in the plaint:- The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. The averments made in the plaint are as hereunder:- “That the plaintiff on 28-3-72 had agreed to sell Ac.35.32 guntas of land @ Rs.8/- per Sq.Yd.and Ac.33.39 guntas @ Rs.5/- per Sq.Yd. situated at Waddepally shivar, Warangal to the 1st defendant Cooperative society. While therefore another so, there was some change and agreement dt.13-3-77 was executed under which the plaintiff took up the responsibility to bear the lay-out charges @ Rs.1.50 per Sq.Yd. and further agreed that if the lay-out charges were more, the plaintiff would not be responsible. The vendors shall be responsible to convert the land covered by Sy.No.423 to 426 into plots at their expense. That the implementation of the contract was slow. That the plaintiff had fulfilled dhis obligations, paid the lay- out charges. That the sale consideration was not paid by the 1st defendant. That by then a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was due to be paid by the society to the plaintiff. That the society made huge profits from out of the transaction as the plots were sold at Rs.10/- to 12/- per Sq.Yd. That there was a tacitunderstanding that the extra amount would be paid to the plaintiff. That the 1st defendant promised that it would call a general body meeting and consult its members and pay Rs.1/- extra per Sq.Yd. to the plaintiff but it did not materialize. That the plaintiff got issued notice around July, 1982 to the defendants to which no reply was received. That there was non-payment of sale consideration in time. That the plaintiff sustained loss of Rs.4,00,000/- in the matter for which the first defendant society is responsible. That realizing the gravity of situation, the defendant No.2and 3 have executed the suit agt6 dt.3-12-84 agreeing to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff, by raising money by sale of additional area, which would be available after change in lay-out of lands covered by Sy.No.408, 401, 45, 55 and 114 supported by a resolution of the society dt.24- 10-82 agreeing to declare that the plaintiff would be at liberty to sell the excess area and recover the amount. That the society undertook to execute sale deeds in favour of the nominees of the plaintiff after sanction of lay-out in the alternative the society would execute a power of attorney in favour of some other persons to execute the sale deeds. That in July, 1983 an application was made to the Commissioner of City Municipality, Warangal (D.4) stating that under the approved lay-out the society lost an area of

41.72% of the totally lay-out area by way of roads and open spaces, which is much more than required percentage and that in view of the fact that large number of members were yet to be allotted plots, the President of the society requested D.4 Municipal Corporation to permit the society to convert Ac.1.73 of vacant site into plots and Ac.0.96 of land into commercial area. That D.4 asserted through a publication on 17-10-85 that nobody should purchase the open space provided for in the approved lay-out, that the open spaces were taken over by the Municipality.”

8. Averments made in the written statement of defendants 1 to 3:- Defendants 1 to 3 filed common written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement and earlier agreements and at the same time denying the material allegations. The issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff also is admitted. They alleged that in response to the notice, the Managing Committee meeting was convened on 24-10- 1982 which the plaintiff had also attended. It was also resolved that the plaintiff was solving and settling disputes concerning some encroachments in the Managing Committee had allotted 20 plots to the nominees of the plaintiff and further agreed to allow four plots only after the plaintiff settled the disputes. That after the legal notice the society resolved to take up the issues relating to the revision of lay-out as per the existing rules. That the plaintiff attested the resolutions. That the plaintiff submitted an application before the 4th defendant for revision of lay-out which was rejected. That the allotted excess land as per the plaintiff’s allegation would be available only if the lay-out gets revised. The allegation of the plaintiff that he sustained loss of Rs.4,00,000/- is denied. That the claim of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- had been made for allotting 20 plots and 4 plots in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of resolution dt.24-10-82. That at any rate the claim of the plaintiff is subject to the plaintiff’s resolving and settling the disputes with the owner in respect of plots No.588, 589, 598, 599 etc. That there are also some suits bearing No.224/86, 176/86, 780/86 in the District Munsif Court, Warangal, which are pending and that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to settle the disputes with the third parties covered by the suits and that unless the plaintiff fulfills his obligations to settle the disputes and gets the revised lay-out sanctioned, the plaintiff has no claim at all and that all the suit claims are pre-mature and not sustainable. That the plaintiff had attended the Manging Committee meeting on 2-12-84 and agreed to abide by the resolutions passed by the Managing Committee and attested the minutes and as per the resolution dt.2-12-84, the plaintiff had demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loss caused to him and that the plaintiff represented that for settlement of issues with Harijans, he has to be allotted excess available land to him as per the revised lay-out and that he agreed to take over the responsibility of individual obligations. That the 4th defendant had taken over the vacant land as alleged by the 4th defendant, that the society has no duty to the plaintiff to render accounts and that the plaintiff is not entitled for performance of contract.

9. Averments made in the additional written statement filed by the society: - The society denied its liability under the suit contract by alleging that the signatories of the contract were not authorized and were not office-bearers of the society. It also alleged that there was never any resolution authorizing the defendants 2 and 3 to do anything in favour of the plaintiff including the execution of the alleged suit contract. That the plaintiff is a real-estate broker who actually arranged land deals to the society after he himself entering into agreement with the land owners and in a way had co-founded the society along with some Central Excise Officials. That the plaintiff had to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the society and get the socalled excess land specified and excluded from the land left out for common use and enjoyment including park and play-grounds etc., from out of total land purchased by the society and get the same specified and that the plaintiff undertook to get these things done at his cost and expense by approaching Kakatiya Urban Development Authority and that the plaintiff undertook to get the excess land and have it in lieu of the allotted plots sale price payable to him and that the plaintiff failed to fulfill his obligations and therefore he is not liable to claim anything against the society. That the defendants 2 and 3 had colluded with plaintiff by mis-using their office adversely affecting the rights of hundreds of members of the society. That the defendants 2 and 3 without knowledge of the members of the society filed the socalled written statement in the name of 1st defendant society and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs sought for.

10. Averments made in the written statement of the 4th defendant:- The 4th defendant filed separate written statement admitting the sanction of lay-out No.6/75. It is also admitted that an application, dt.15-7-85 had been filed by the President of the 1st defendant society seeking conversion of an extent of Ac.1.73 of open space into plots and an extent of 0.96 acres into commercial plots to which a suitable reply dt.17-10-85 was issued by the 4th defendant informing the society that the proposed conversion cannot be allowed and that the nature of area shown as open space in the approved lay- out becomes the property of the Municipality and the owners seized to have any rights and that the open area shown in the lay-out 6/75 is not in excess as alleged by the plaintiff and that once the lay-out is approved by the Director of Town Planning and the Municipal Council, it cannot be reopened and that the defendant society is estopped in law from reopening the lay-out and that there is no cause of action against the 4th defendant.

11. Issues and Additional Issues settled:- Issues:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts? 3) To what relief the parties are entitled to? Additional Issue:- “Whether the alternative remedy recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest thereon is barred by limitation?”

12. Oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties:- Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:- P.W.1 :- M.Ramaiah Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:- D.W.1 :- A.Purushotham Rao D.W.2 :- G.Purushotham Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:- Ex.A.1 :- Existing lay-out of the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Society Ex.A.2 :- Dt.3-12-84, Agreement executed by D.2 and D.3. Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants :- Ex.B.1 dt.16-5-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.2 dt.5-5-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.3 dt.3-5-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.4 dt.14-2-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.5 dt.16-5-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.6 dt.16-5-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.7 dt.10-5-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.8 dt.10-2-76 :- Receipt Ex.B.9 dt.9-12-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.10 dt.2-10-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.11 dt.15-7-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.12 dt.19-10-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.13 dt.11-10-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.14 dt.11-10-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.15 dt.10-11-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.16 dt.6-11-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.17 dt.19-10-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.18 dt.10-4-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.19 dt.31-3-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.20 dt.30-3-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.21 dt.30-3-85 :- Receipt Ex.B.22 dt.30-3-85 :- Receipt Ex.B.23 dt.9-8-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.24 dt.10-6-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.25 dt.22-7-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.26 dt.3-7-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.27 dt.15-2-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.28 dt.30-6-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.29 dt.2-6-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.30 dt.8-6-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.31 dt.11-1-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.32 dt.15-6-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.33 dt.5-6-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.34 dt.10-1-74 :- Receipt Ex.B.35 dt.13-5-72 :- Receipt Ex.B.36 dt.4-4-72 :- Receipt Ex.B.37 dt.11-5-72 :- Receipt Ex.B.38 dt.13-5-72 :- Receipt Ex.B.39 dt.16-5-72 :- Receipt Ex.B.40 dt.11-5-72 :- Receipt Ex.B.41 dt.9-10-74 :- Receipt for Rs.2,447/- Ex.B.42 dt.9-10-74 :- Receipt for Rs.26,750/- Ex.B.43 dt.15-7-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.44 dt.15-7-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.45 dt.15-7-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.46 dt.15-7-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.47 dt.15-7-75 :- Receipt Ex.B.48 dt.15-7-75 :- Acknowledgment Ex.B.49 dt.24-10-82 :- Resolution of the Managing Committee Ex.B.50 :- Ledger Ex.B.51 :- Ledger Ex.B.52 dt.28-3-73 :- Agreement of sale. Ex.B.53 :- Pamphlet Ex.B.54 dt.31-3-93 :- Letter from P.W.1 to the President of the Society Ex.B.55 dt,15-5-80 :- Inspection Report Ex.B.56 dt.28-9-87 :- Letter Ex.B.57 dt.2-10-87 :- letter Ex.B.58 dt.2-10-87 :- Letter Ex.B.59 dt.14-1-89 :- Letter Ex.B.60 dt.19-4-89 :- Acknowledgment Ex.B.61 :- Defect sheet of the Central Cooperative Society Limited for the year 1976-77 Ex.B.62 :- Defect Sheet of the Central Cooperative Society Limited for the year 1977-78 Ex.B.63 dt.4-7-81 :- Letter by R.D.O., Municipal Commissioner, Warangal Ex.B.64 dt.25-10-79 :- Letter addressed by the Secretary of the Society to the Municipal Commissioner, Warangal Ex.B.65 dt.11-1-82 :- Letter from one V.Venkata Mallaiah Ex.B.66 dt.1-10-86 :- Pamphlet Ex.B.67 dt.17-10-86 :- Pamphlet Ex.B.68 dt.2-10-86 :- Pamphlet Ex.B.69 dt.10-10-87 :- Letter from Central Excise Officer to Advocate Ex.B.70 dt.2-1-88 :- Letter from Secretary to Government. Ex.B.71 dt.17-2-76 :- sale deed Ex.B.72 dt.22-12-75 :- Sale deed Ex.B.73 dt.5-11-75 :- Sale deed Ex.B.74 dt.16-5-78 :- Sale deed Ex.B.75 dt.11-1-78 :- sale deed Ex.B.76 dt.19-2-71 :- Sale deed

13. Findings recorded by the trial Court in brief:- The trial Court appreciated the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, D.W.1, D.W.2 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.76 aforesaid and while answering issue No.2 held that since the plaintiff by way of an amendment deleted old para No.9 of the plaint, thereby giving up the claim for rendition of accounts, the said issue having become infructuous, the same was answered accordingly. While answering issue No.1 and Additional Issue dt.28-3-94, the learned Judge appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in elaboration had referred to the contents of Ex.A.2 as well, recorded reasons commencing from paras 18 to 31 and ultimately answered Issue No.1 and Additional Issue as well and further while recording further reasons while answering Issue No.3 at paras 33, 34, 35 and 36 as well, ultimately came to the conclusion that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. But however decreed the suit directing payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by the 1st defendant society but however the interest was ordered only from the date of decree and not from the date of the suit and the interest shall be at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

14. In the light of the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel Sri G.Gangaiah Naidu and the standing Counsel representing Respondent-4/Municipality, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:- 1) Whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court granting only the refund of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest for limited period to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances? 2) Whether the findings of the Trial Court refusing the principal relief of specific performance to be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?

15. Points 1 and 2:- For the purpose of convenience points 1 and 2 are being discussed together. The case of the plaintiff is that by way of two agreements of sale dt.28-3-72 and 13-3-77 he agreed to sell Ac.35.32 and Ac.33.39 situated at Waddepally shivar, Warangal to the 1st defendant society. The plaintiff does not claim to be the owner of the land. The plaintiff claims that he is an agreement of sale holder for the said land. According to the plaintiff, as per the agreement, he paid the lay-out charges etc. That for the implementation of the contract, the plaintiff had fulfilled his obligations and paid lay-out charges. That the sale consideration was not paid by the 1st defendant and by that time, the society was due Rs.2,00,000/- to him. That the society made huge profits from the sale of plots to its members by selling the plots at Rs.10/- to Rs.12/- per square yards. That there was tacit understanding that extra amount would be paid to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was promised that the general body meeting of the first defendant would be called and after consulting with the members of the society, he would be paid Rs.1/- per Sq.Yd., which had not materialized. That there was non-payment of sale consideration by that time and that the plaintiff sustained loss of Rs.4,00,000/- for which, the first defendant society is responsible. That the defendants No.2 and 3 have executed Ex.A.2 agreement dt.3-12- 84 agreeing to pay Rs.2,00,000/- by raising money by sale of additional area which would be available after change in the lay-out in lands supported by a resolution of the society dt.24-10-82. That in July,1983 an application was made to the Commissioner of City Municipality, Warangal, for revision of lay-out by alleging that the society lost an area of 41.72% of the total lay-out area by way of roads and open spaces, which is much more than the required percentage. That the Municipal Corporation cautioned the public against purchase of vacant spaces. Defendants 1 and 3 admitted the execution of suit agreement Ex.A.2 but however had taken a stand that the suit agreement is not supported by consideration and the plaintiff failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement. An additional written statement also was filed by the 1st defendant – society. It was pleaded that the society had no liability under the suit contract and that the signaturies to the contract Ex.A.2 were not authorized and were not the office-bearers of the society and that there was never any resolution authorizing defendants No.2 and 3 to do anything in favour of the plaintiff including execution of the alleged suit contract. That the plaintiff is a real estate broker who actually arranged the land deals to the society after he himself entering into agreements with the land owners and in a way had co-founded the society along with some other Central Excise Officials. That the plaintiff had to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the society and get the so-called excess land specified and that the plaintiff undertook to get these done at his cost and expense by approaching KUDA and that the plaintiff undertook to get the excess land and have it in lieu of the allotted plots sale price payable to him and that the plaintiff failed to fulfill the obligations and therefore he cannot proceed for any relief against the society. The execution of Ex.A.2 agreement of sale by defendants 2 and 3 is not in serious dispute. The 1st defendant society in fact admitted that the plaintiff also was one of the co-owners of the society. It is true that the 1st defendant society had taken a stand that the plaintiff is only a land broker and the suit is a speculative one. The learned Judge referred to the contents of Ex.A.2, had taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.B.50, Ex.B.55 and also Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.47 – the receipts, Ex.B.49 the resolution of the Managing Committee, Ex.B.50 to Ex.B.54 and Ex.B.56 to Ex.B.76 as well and ultimately while answering issue No.3 observed:- “The plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 acted in a way which is not completely above board. It is also clear from the material on record that the members of the society have benefited from these activities. Only when it became clear that the plaintiff earned huge profits, they became restless. Otherwise, there is no meaning in imputing earning in lakhs by the plaintiff solely on the basis of the sale considerations mentioned in the sale deeds. The suspicion entertained by the Inspecting Officer covered by Ex.B.55 on this aspect is justified. The resolution of the Managing Committee of the society as discussed by Minutes Ex.B.50 and participation of the plaintiff on all days when crucial decisions were taken by the society and his endorsements on the minutes book as well as his description given in the minutes as beneficiary, would clearly support the plaintiff on Ex.A.2 to the effect that it was certainly supported by consideration and that consideration was the services rendered by the plaintiff. Inspite of the shifting stand of the plaintiff, the plaintiff proved that Ex.A.2 was executed by the defendants No.2 and 3 for the 1st defendant society. There is no land now to convey under Ex.A.2 in view of the rejection of revised lay-out proposals as disclosed from Ex.B.70. Therefore the relief of specific performance cannot be granted and the prayer to that effect is dismissed.”

16. In the light of several admissions made, the learned Judge thought that it would be appropriate to order refund. The subsequent events and also certain developments had been brought to the notice of this Court, but however the parties had not placed those subsequent events clearly on record. Certain submissions had been made in relation to W.P.No.6480/2004 and also W.P.No.1021/99 as well and in the light of the same, the learned senior Counsel Sri Gangaiah Naidu would contend that it would be just and proper to have the whole issue is reconsidered again and the learned senior Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the view which may be expressed in W.P.No.6480/2004 may be that the other subsequent developments also may have to be taken into consideration and accordingly the relief of specific performance also to be moulded in the suit. The learned senior Counsel also would further contend that in the light of the positive findings relating to Ex.A.2 by the Trial Court, there is no justification in ordering refund only. This Court had thoroughly gone through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and may be in the light of the admitted facts, the learned Judge after recording reasons came to just conclusion, but however since subsequent events had been brought to the notice of this Court and certain submissions had been made may be that it would be just and proper to make an order of remand.

17. Point No.3:- In the result, the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.133/86 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal, to decide the matter afresh in the light of the respective stands which may be taken by the parties. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence of P.W.1, D.Ws.1 and 2 alone is available on record apart from the documentary evidence and in the light of the subsequent events, the parties are at liberty to amend their respective pleadings suitably and the parties are also at liberty to add such parties who may be affected by virtue of subsequent events and the parties also are at liberty to adduce further evidence on all aspects and after giving such liberty, let the learned Judge dispose of the suit at the earliest point of time.

18. W.P.No.6480/2004 The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition already had been specified supra. It is stated that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the land owners in the year 1970 and 1971 in respect of about Ac.68-00 of land, comprised in different survey numbers, situated at Waddepalli Sivar, Warangal, Warangal District. Thereafter, the petitioner and the original land owners land owners entered into an agreement of sale dt.28-3-72 of the same land with Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited (which was registered under Societies Registration Act as T.T.No.255), the 2nd respondent herein. The land owners obtained exemption under Land Ceiling Act to sell the land to the 2nd respondent society in the year 1974. Thereafter, lay-out plan in L.P.No.6/75 was obtained on 1- 12-75 which was duly approved by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad.

19. Further it is averred that while so, the agreement dt.28-3-72 which was entered between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was amended by way of another agreement dt.13-3-77, wherein two clauses i.e., Clause 3 and 7 were amended to the effect that the petitioner should bare Betterment and Conversion charges to an extent of Rs.1-50per Sq.Yd. and any amount over and above the said amount be borne by the society and the registration shall be at the cost of the land owners etc.

20. It is also stated that as per the terms of the Agreement, the petitioner had completed all the works and the society in turn sold all the plots to its members but the society failed to repay the amount in which the petitioner had spent towards Betterment and Conversion charges. Accordingly the petitioner issued legal notice to the society in July, 1982 demanding for the amount payable to the petitioner over and above Rs.1-50 per Sq.Yd. spent by him towards Betterment and Conversion charges. The society in turn executed an agreement dt.3- 12-1984, assuring the petitioner to pay Rs.2 lakhs by selling additional area of land, which would be available to the society after revision of lay-out. Further the petitioner was also asked to workout for the revised lay-out in view of the resolution of the society dt.24-10-82 and further permitted to sell the additional/excess land for the purpose of realizing the amount. In that regard, an application was also submitted for the revised lay-out stating that while approving the lay-out in L.P.No.6/75 41.72% of land was taken towards open space and parks etc., as against the required 33.1/3% of land and accordingly the excess land which was earmarked as Reserved Site may released/return back to the 2nd respondent society. On 17-10-85, the then Municipality rejected the request on the ground that since original lay-out was approved by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad and it has no right to revise the same.

21. It is also further stated that as the petitioner spent lot of money and the society failed to reimburse the same, he had instituted O.S.No.133/86 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal for specific performance of contract in respect of 5 plots in L.P.No.6/75 or alternatively recovery of Rs.2 lakhs. The learned Principal Sessions Judge after conducting trial, delivered Judgment on 19-7-96 decreeing the suit by granting alternative relief of recovery of Rs.2 lakhs from the society. The main relief of specific performance of the suit was not granted on the ground that there is no land now to convey by the society as per the agreement dt.3-12-84. In fact, though the Government has not passed any orders revising the lay-out.

22. Further it is stated that as the Government failed to take action on the representation of the petitioner to revise the lay-out, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition at the instance of the society in W.P.No.23032/96. After hearing, this Court passed orders on 1-11-96 directing the Government as well as the Municipality to pass order on the representation dt.10-2-96 as per law.

23. It is also averred that subsequently the petitioner had also filed an appeal in A.S.No.2754/96 challenging the Judgment and Decree dt.19-7-96 made in O.S.No.133/86 before this Court on the ground that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has not passed any orders with regard to the revision of lay-out and therefore the Subordinate Judge had passed orders negativing the relief of granting land is improper in the absence of any orders from the Government.

24. While that being so, on the representation filed before the Government, orders were passed by the Government on 11-10-2002 directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation regarding the modification of lay-out as per the rules keeping in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23032/1996. But the said orders of the Government have been fabricated and the 1st respondent had received the same proceedings of the letter with adding two other sentences. The said fabrication of the orders of the Government came light by filing fabrication letters the Court C.M.P.No.15829/2003 in A.S.No.2754/96. Thereafter, the Government has ordered investigating directing the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement Department to conduct detailed enquiry. Pursuant to that, enquiry has been conducted and it came to light that the petitioner is not concerned with any alleged fabrication and the same was done by third parties.

25. It is also stated that in fact the gist of both the original letter of the Government dt.11-10-2002 and the alleged fabrication letter is one and the same. Though the orders of the Government dt.11-10-2002 is innocuous in nature wherein the Government has directed the KUDA to pass orders as per rules, but the allegation of the Government is that the said innocuous orders of the Government have been fabricated by adding other two sentences, which ought not have done, for which Vigilance Enforce Department is proceeding with the enquiry and appropriate action will be taken place basing on the said report to be filed by the Vigilance Enforcement Department.

26. Further it is also averred that earlier when the petitioner submitted a representation on 8-8-2001 to the Warangal Municipal Corporation requesting to consider the case of the society by releasing excess land which written statement taken away while approving the lay-out in L.P.No.6/75. Pursuant the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal – the 1st respondent has passed orders in Rc.No.C1/808/2000/761, dt.1-9-2001, wherein the KUDA has stated specifically which is as follows:- “I invite kind attention to the reference cited and submit that Sri M.Ramaiah has requested to release excess area involved in Roads and Open Spaces in respect of lay-out No.6/75 belongs to Central Excice Officers Cooperative Housing Society, Warangal out of an extent of 70 acres road area 20.7 Acres (28%) and open space 7.7 acres (11%) total area earmarked for public purpose as 39% (i.e., 1,09,474 sq.mtrs) as against 33% (in other lay-outs) i.e., in excess of 6.5% area. In this regard, I further submit that in response to the Government letter, I am herewith enclosing the statement showing the open spaces pocket-wise of L.P.No.6/75 belongs to Central Officers Cooperative Housing society as desired by the Government. Hence, this is for favour of information & necessary orders”. The said proceedings clearly shows that an excess of 6.5% area was taken over by the Government at the time of lay-out. When the 1st respondent itself admitted that there is an excess land was taken over by the Government while approving the lay-out and in view of that the society is entitled to get the said excess land from KUDAin order to discharge the suit amount which was decreed against society as per the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal dt.19-7-96 O.S.No.133/86.

27. It is also averred that it is important to note that in fact normally after approving the lay-out, the lay-out owner will register the Reserved Sites which was earmarked for Roads and Parks in favour of the Municipality as per Rule 16 of the Municipal Corporation (Lay-out Rules). In the present case, though lay-out was approved by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad in L.P.No.6/75 and after approving the lay-out, the society did not register the reserved site in favour of the Municipality and the said site was also not handed over to the Municipality. In view of the fact that the then Municipality passed orders directing the society to execute a gift deed in favour of the Municipality. But the society somehow failed to execute the same and in the result the possession and title is with the society only. As such the Municipality did not get any right or title on the site which was earmarked for Parks and Roads in L.P.No.6/75.

28. Further it is stated that as already stated in earlier paras that as the Municipality/KUDA has admitted in the specific terms while addressing a letter to the Government an excess area of 6.5% was taken by the Government at the time of lay-out and it is the bounded duty of the 1st respondent to release the said 6.5% area to the 2nd respondent – society for which either the Corporation or the Government will not have no objection. Moreover it is the duty cast upon the 1st respondent to release/remit back the excess land in favour of the Lay-out owner. Otherwise, the 1st respondent will be liable for any appropriate action to be taken by the Lay-out owner. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition had been thought of praying for the relief specified supra.

29. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that entering into the agreement by the petitioner with the land owner in the year 1970-1971 is snot known to this respondent and subsequent agreements with the land owners and the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing society Limited, which were between the original land owners and the Housing society Limited and that therefore the said agreements are not know to this respondent. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad had approved the lay-out vide L.P.No.6/75 to the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda, Warangal on making application by the society. But the petitioner is no way concerned with the land in question. It is further stated that the petitioner has no right to question or interfere in the approved lay-out which was approved long back and 100% development has been taken place in the colony and as such the petitioner cannot defeat the interest of the public.

30. It is also stated that the agreements between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is individual and this respondent is unconcerned to those agreements. The then Municipality, Warangal, rejected the revision of lay-out on 17-10-85 on the ground that the original lay-out was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning which holds good, after the rejection order passed by the Municipality for revising the lay-out. The petitioner approached different authorities without disclosing the facts of his approach to such authorities. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.23032/96 before this Court declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents therein in setting apart excess land towards Roads and Open space i.e., more than the prescribed land as per the lay-out rules while approving the lay-out in Lay-out Plan No.6/75. This Court by order dt.1-11-96 was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner dt.10-2-96 by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the material in support of his case and take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. In the above said appellant, the KUDA was not made as party respondent. It is also stated that in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner had not made the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, as party respondent. Since the petitioner pretty well knew that he is seeking relief the present Writ Petition as was sought W.P.No.23032/96 as such the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of not making the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, as party respondent. It is also stated that after rejection of the revision of lay-out by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, on 17- 10-85 and after the disposal of the Writ Petition W.P.No.23032/96 the petitioner made representation in the year 1997 and the same was rejected the Municipal Corporation, Warangal ROC.No.Gr/3596/97 dt.8-5-97 under the intimation to the KUDA, as such the petitioner now cannot seek the same relief from this Court by filing the present Writ Petition and as such the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

31. It is further stated that the petitioner instituted O.S.No.133/86 for specific performance of contract of the agreement dt.3-12-84 which is an agreement between the society and the petitioner and as such this respondent is unconcerned with that agreement more so KUDA was not the party to the suit in O.S.No.133/86 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal.

32. It is also further averred that in W.P.No.23032/96 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner sought relief against the Municipality and also the Government without making the KUDA as well as the Government of A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department as party respondent. In the instant case, the petitioner deliberately did not make the Government as well as the Warangal Municipal Corporation as party respondents with a malafide intention to seek the relief against KUDA which is not a party in all the earlier proceedings, which shows the malafide intention of the petitioner. It is further stated that aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.19-7-96 passed in O.S.No.133/86, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.2754/96 before this Court and event in that appeal also the KUDA was not made as a party. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

33. Further it is also averred that A.S.No.2754/96 is pending before this Court. This Court initiated su-motu contempt against the petitioner in C.C.No.1082/2003 for filing a copy of the Order in the High Court issued by the Government on 11-10-2002 which was found to be fabricated document and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- was also imposed and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.1298/2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the orders passed C.C.No.1082/2003 and the petitioner was released on bail.

34. It is also stated in para 8 that basing on the representation made by the petitioner to the Government dt.6-6-2001 the Government addressed a letter No.14298/M2/2001 dt.11-10-2002 directing the Vice Chairman,KUDA as follows: “In the reference 1st and 3rd cited, the applicant has represented to the Government that earlier representation made to Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority requesting to release of excess open space i.e., modification to lay-out was not disposed of by the Vice- Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority. Keeping in view of the representation of the applicant and position of the left over members of the society and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.23032/96 provision of open space (5%) roads,(28%) be limited to 33% only, modifying the L.P.No.6/75 and release the remaining area to the petitioner. The Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority directed to take action accordingly with immediate effect.” But in fact, the Government passed the order on 10-11-2002 requesting the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority to dispose of the representation of the applicant regarding the modification of the lay-out which reads as follows:- “In the reference 1st and 3rd cited the applicant has represented that his earlier the Government representation made to Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority regarding releasing of excess open space i.e., modification to lay-out was not disposed of by the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority. In view of the above, the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority is requested to disposed of the representation of the applicant regarding modification lay- out after duly verifying the ground position and as per the rules and law keeping in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.23032/1996.”

35. Further it is stated that basing on the letter dt.10-11-2002 issued by the Government, the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority passed orders on 8-2-2003 revising the lay-out plan No.6/75 by limiting the open space area to 5% of the total area covered by the lay- out, when the petitioner filed the order dt.8-2-2003 passed by the Vice- Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority in the High Court in C.M.P.No.158/2003 in A.S.No.2754/96 it was detected that the order was fabricated one. As such sue-motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by this Court. It is further stated that basing on the representation dt.10-7-2000 made by the petitioner, the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Warangal to furnish the specific remarks to consider the revision of lay-out No.6/75 for reducing the open space area under letter dt.5-9-2000. Basing on the letter dt.5-2- 2000 of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, the Municipal Corporation, Warangal informed the petitioner vide his letter dt.12-12- 2000 clarifying that the detailed reasons have been furnished to the petitioner rejecting his claim vide endorsement dt.8-5-97 of the Municipal Corporation, Warangal and further informed that the open space in lay-out plan L.P.No.6/75 is owned and possessed by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner for revision of lay-out was rejected. After rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal dt.12-12-2000 the petitioner once again made a representation on 2-3-2001 to release excess open space L.P.No.6/75 as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.23032/96, however, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority informed petitioner that W.P.No.1021/99 filed by the petitioner is pending on the file of this Court and action will be taken after disposal of the Writ Petition and this was informed to the petitioner under letter dt.12-3-

2001. In the meanwhile, a letter dt.11-10-2002 had been received by this respondent on 27-11-2002 from the Principal Secretary to Government, MA & UD Department, directing the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority to limit the open space to 33% duly modifying the L.P.No.6/75 and release the remaining area to the petitioner. Basing on the letter dt.11-10-2002 of the Principal Secretary to Government, MA & UD Department, the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority has revised the L.P.No.6/75 by limiting the open space area to 5% of total area covered by the lay-out which resulted in increase of 29 plots in addition to the 622 existing plots. The Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority also communicated the progress of revision of lay-out to the petitioner under proceedings dt.8-2-2003. The petitioner the said proceedings before this Court in C.M.P.No.15829/03 A.S.No.2754/96 wherein this Court found that the orders dt.11-10-2002 issued by the Government were fabricated, as such this Court directed the Director General of Vigilance and Enforcement Department to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report to this Court within three months when it was detected in the Court proceedings pending before this Court. In A.S.No.2754/96 this respondent had cancelled the lay-out dt.8-2-2003 noting that the letter dt.11-10-2002 received on 27-11-2002 by the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority was fabricated one. It is further stated that Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority issued proceedings dt.20-8-2003 cancelling the revised lay-out dt.8-2-2003 under the notice to the petitioner.

36. Further it was averred in para 10 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner referred to the lay-out rules under which open space should be transferred in favour of Municipal Corporation of Warangal but the petitioner intentionally has not made the Government and Municipal Corporation, Warangal as party respondent to the present Writ Petition. However, the Municipal Corporation, Warangal rejected the representation of the petitioner through the endorsement dt.12-2- 2000 stating that the open space in L.P.No.6/75 is owned and possessed by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal. It is further stated that under Rule 10-A of Lay-out Rules, the open space meant for Parks and Play Ground shall be vested with the Municipal Corporation as per the Lay-out Rules. After vesting such open space with Corporation, the Corporation shall maintain such open spaces for the purpose for which such open space has been earmarked. Therefore in the light of the Rule position, the 2nd respondent society or anybody cannot claim any right over the public utility other than the purpose for which it is reserved.

37. It is also stated that the petitioner is not concerned with the land covered under L.P.No.6/75 which belongs to the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing society Limited more so the agreement entered into between respondent No.2 and the petitioner are individual and that the respondent is no way concerned with such agreements and further the petitioner is not owning the land and accordingly he is not entitled to claim public open space which is undivided share of the residents of the colony. Further it is also stated that the Municipal Corporation, Warangal maintaining the infrastructural facility of Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited such as roads, drainage, street lights, water supply, open place etc., wherein 100% houses already have come up in the lay-out land and the residents of the colony are enjoying the undivided public utility area for the last 29 years. As such the petitioner does not have any right whatsoever to claim the land under the guise of the revision of lay-out to which he is not entitled to by way of undivided land. Further it is stated that the open space which was revised in the lay-out cannot be directed for the other purposes except the purposes for which it is reserved. As such the request of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Municipality on earlier occasions. As such the petitioner is snot entitled for the relief sought for in the Writ Petition since there are no merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly the same is liable to be rejected in limini. In such circumstances, the dismissal of the Writ Petition had been prayed for.

38. In the light of the clear stand taken in para 8 of the counter affidavit and the different orders which are said to have been made and also in the light of the fact that this Court is inclined to make an order of remand in the appeal A.S.No.2754/96, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the whole issue after hearing all the parties by putting such other parties who may be affected by the order which may be made by this Court, at the earliest point of time preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

39. W.P.No.1021/99:- The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition already had been specified supra.

40. It is stated that the petitioner agreed to sell the extent of Ac.68-71 guntas of land forming part of various survey numbers in Sy.No.45 (new Sy.No.444 and 445), 55 (new Sy.No.292), 401, 404, 114 (new Sy.No.275) and 408 situated at Waddepalli shivar, Subedari, Warangal to the Central Excise Officer Coop.Housing Society Limited (hereinafter called as ‘the society’). Accordingly, the petitioner and the society entered into an agreement on 28-3-72. Subsequently an amendment to the said agreement was made on 13-3-77. Asper the amendment, the petitioner had undertaken to get the lay-out drawn and the petitioner also responsible to complete the land-marking into plots at his own expenses.

41. It is further stated that as per the agreement the petitioner had completed his part of work and paid the lay-out charges. But the sale consideration was not paid by the society. By then a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was due to him. But nothing was paid to the petitioner. Eventually, the petitioner issued a legal notice in the month of July, 1982 to pay the amount but the petitioner did not receive any reply. It is also stated that due to non-payment of the said consideration, the petitioner had incurred loss to an extent of Rs.4 lakhs.

42. Further it is stated that in the year 1986, the petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.133/86 against the society and its Office-bearers and Warangal Municipality. In the suit, the petitioner had sought for specific performance of contract. When the suit is pending, the petitioner had filed several representations the Warangal Municipality stating that while approving the lay-out in L.P.No.6/75 some excess land was taken i.e., much more than the required percentage and requested the Municipality to revise the lay-out and if any excess land taken, the same may be resurrendered to him.

43. Further it is also stated by the petitioner that the Warangal Municipality did not take any action on his repeated representations and the same are pending consideration by the Municipality. It is further stated that the learned Subordinate Judge, while decreeing the suit, rejected the prayer in the suit for specific performance of contract on the ground that there is no land now to convey. Though the said representation of the society is nothing to do with petitioner’s request, the learned Subordinate Judge observed that his request of provision of lay-out has been rejected by the Government, observing the same, in the Judgment, the petitioner’s prayer was rejected.

44. It is also stated that as the Warangal Municipality failed to pass orders on the petitioner’s request of revision of lay-out, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition. This Court passed orders on the above Writ Petition directing the Municipality to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders as per the Rules. In view of the same, the Municipality yet to pass orders with regard to revision of lay-out in L.P.No.6/75.

45. It is further stated that subsequently the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23032/96, the petitioner also made application to the Warangal Municipality and also to the State Government requesting to revise the lay-out in L.P.No.6/75 and resurrender the excess land which was taken while approving the L.P.No.6/75. But till today either the Warangal Municipality or the Government has not passed any orders on his representation.

46. It is also averred that aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in effusing to grant the relief of specific performance of contract, as per Judgment dt.19-7-96 in O.S.No.133/86, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.No.2754/96. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a petition for granting interim injunction vide CMP.No.17185/96. This Court ground interim injunction for a period eight weeks orders dt.19-12-1996 C.M.P.No.17185/96. Subsequently, the said order has been made absolute by this Court and the said appeal is pending before this Court.

47. It is further averred that while that being so, the District Collector and Project Director of DRDA, S.C. Corporation, B.C.Corporation, Executive Directors, Revenue Divisional Officer of Warangal and Joint Director of Agricultural Department along with the Municipal Commissioner of Warangal Municipality of all the above said officials have been formed into a Committee as per the directions of the Government to establish Rythu Bazar in the District Headquarters at Warangal. It is also not out of place to mention that the State Government has issued instructions to all the Collectors of all the Districts to establish Rythu Bazar in every District Headquarters. Accordingly the respondent herein by forming a Committee in the Warangal Town establishing Rythu Bazar and they have selected the land situated in the lands belong to the petitioner in Sy.No.45 (new Sy.No.444, 445), 55 (new Sy.No.292), 114 (new Sy.No.275) and 408 and 401 and the authorities – respondents are taking steps by made fit the land for establishing the Rythu Bazar. It is reliably learnt through the press that they are starting the Rythu Bazar on 26-1-99. In the said Rythu Bazar there will be a Vegetable Market and other allied items will be taken place. If at all the authorities are proceeding with the establishing of Rythu Bazar the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury apart from that there is an injunction issued against the 1st respondent restraining him not to alienate the lands and not to change the same. The said orders are still subsisting till today. Therefore the authorities have no right to establish Rythu Bazar in the land covered by the injunction order in this Court. In such circumstances, the said Writ Petition was filed.

48. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 in para 2 it was averred that in reply to the allegations made in para 11 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is stated that according to the instructions of the State Government, Rythu Bazar is to be established in all the District Headquarters. Accordingly, the work of establishment of Rythu Bazar was entrusted to the Project Director, DRDA, Warangal. The open place set apart in L.P.No.6/75 at Excise Colony, Warangal, was selected for establishment of Rythu Bazar in Sy.No.45 (new Sy.No.444 and 445), 55 (new Sy.No.292), 114 (new Sy.No.275) and 408 and

401. On 25-1-199 Rythu Bazar was inaugurated enabling the farmers to sell their produce direct to the consumers eliminating the middlemen system. Since Rythu Bazar is established for the welfare of the community at large, the establishment of Rythu Bazar is just and proper in the open place set apart in the Excise Colony in L.P.No.6/75. This Court passed interim injunction in W.P.No.1180/99 in W.P.No.1021/99 on 25-1-99 and the copy of orders received through registered post on 3-2-99. Only temporary sheds have been erected in the Rythu Bazar to sell vegetables by the farmers to the needy customers. As alleged the land was not alienated to any agency. Since the title of the land vests with the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, the consent of Municipal Corporation, Warangal has been taken. On receipt of injunction orders from this Court, proposed permanent construction in Rythu Bazar were dispensed with. The nature of the land in question was not changed and the land still remain as open place. The petitioner is not in possession of the land and the petitioner has no right over the said land. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

49. In the light of the clear stand taken that on receipt of injunction order, the proposed permanent construction of Rythu Bazar had been dispensed with, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly recording the stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 aforesaid.

50. In the result, the appeal A.S.No.2754/96 is hereby allowed by making an order of remand but directing the parties to bear their own costs. It is needless to say that Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.133/86 are hereby set aside as aforesaid and the matter is remanded to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal, to decide the matter afresh, in the light of the respective stands which may be taken by the parties. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence of P.W.1, D.Ws.1 and 2 alone is available on record apart from the documentary evidence and in the light of the subsequent events, the parties are at liberty to amend their respective pleadings suitably and the parties are also at liberty to add such parties who may be affected by virtue of subsequent events and the parties also are at liberty to adduce further evidence on all aspects and after giving such liberty, let the learned Judge dispose of the suit at the earliest point of time. Further it is made clear that inasmuch as the decision in the suit also may depend upon the result and orders which may be made in accordance with the directions in W.P.No.6480/2004, the parties are at liberty to place such further material as well apart from the other directions which had been specified supra. The parties to bear their own costs. _______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 21st June, 2010