Kondam Tirupathi Reddy v. 1. Revenue Divisional Officer

Petition Under section i5'1 cpc praying that in the c rcrmstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of drspossession of the petitioner from House bearing No.20_6/10. prot No. 1 02, admeasuring 200 sq.yds. situated in Sy. No.54 of Jppat Khalsa Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A.NO:1 OF 2011 (WPMP.NO:1659 5 0F 201 1) Between: 1 P.Mallesha, S/o Pallaiah, (died per L.Rs),R/o 1-1-687t1t1 , trr1.G.Mansron, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. P.Bharathamma, Wo.Late P.Mallesha, aged 65 years, Occ : House Hold, Rlo.1-1-687I111, lt/.G.Mansion, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad T.Shashikala, D/o.Late P.Mallesha, aged 55 years, Occ : Housewife, Rlo.1 -1 -687 I 1 I 1, M. G.lvlansion, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. K,Meera Bai, Dio.Late P.Mallesha, aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.1- 1-6871111, M.G.Mansion, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. f,Jayakar, S/o.Late P.Mallesha, aged 47 years, Occ . Business, R/o.1-'l- 6871111, M.G.Mansion, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. P.Ramesh, Sio. Late P.lvlallesha, aged 45 years. Occ: Business, R/o.i-l- 6871111, M.G.Mansion, Gandhrnagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. J 4 5 o

7. P.Suresh, D/o.Late P.Mallesha, aged 41 years, Occ : Business, R/o.1 -'1 - 6871111, M.G.lrlansion, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. B. Anitha, D/o.Late P.Mallesha, aged 4'l years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.'1-1- 6871111, M.G.Mansion, Gandhinagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. AND (Petitioners 1 to 8 to be Added as proposed Respondent Nos.S to'12 in W.P.4397 l05l t

1. Kondam Tirupathi Reddy, S/o Butchi Reddy, Rlo 20-6110, Adarshnagar, Near Kummarikunta, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, East Divrsion, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal,, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Special Court for cases under A.P.Land Grabbing, (prohibition) Act, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioners as proposed 4th to '1 1th Respondent in the above Wp No. 4397 of 2005 in the interest of justice. r' a, 4 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the petitioners as proposed 4th to i.lth Respcndent : SRI KESHAV HULSURKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI J.p.SREEKANTH The Court made the following ORDER 4 I I I t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA W.P.No.4397 OF 2OOs ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sn Justrce T-.Vittod Kutnar) 'l'his writ petition is filed with the lollowing pra.vcr "lo is-sue a u,trit of mandantus or ang othe:r altpropriate urit cle<:laing that the petitiorrcr who is the otuner artl 2ossr:'s'sor o/ I'Lot No 1O2 in Sg No.54 of Uppal Khalsa ViLloqt:, Lll4tal Mandal, Ranga Red.dg District, ond House No.2O-6/ 1O atLtrt'ttsrtinq 2OO sq gd.s, connot be dispossessed in exeantion of tlrc lulgrnertt in LGC Case Nos. 2 1 5 to 22O of 1995 ort tlrc lile of tlle 3't respond,ent, since, the appLication schedule Lorrcls irr lle said cases are diJferent from that of the petitioner arul corsequentlg direct the respondents from not interfeing ut[tlt llu' po's'sr:s'sion and enjogment of the petitioner ouer Lhe House prt4te'rlg beoring No 2O-6/ 10, in Plot No 1O2 admeasuringt 2OO st1 -r7ris inl Sr7 No 54 of uppal Khalsa Village, Uppal Mand.al., Ronglrt Redtlg lhstrict, and grant such other reLief as it deems fit in the c.irc.l:rstances of the".

2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, krarnetl Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, lcarned Ooverrrm<:nt Pleadcr for Assignment appearing lor respondent Nos. I to 3, Sri .l.l'Srcekanth, learned counsel appearing for respondcnt No.4, tlncl pcrused the record. \-r 2

3. The case ol the petitioner, in brief, is that lrc is the absollltc owncr and possessor o[ plot admeasuring 200 sq. ..,:rr-ds bearing plot No. 1O2 premises bearing No.20-6/ l0 in survey No.51 of tJppat Ktralsa Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, havi rg purchased the same under registcred Sale Deed bearing documerrt No.9g54l 1999, dr. 15. 12. 1999.

4. Il is the lurther case of the petitioner that su l)sequent to the purchase of aforesaicl property, he has been in possession ancl enjoyment of the same an(l constructed a house wh r:h is assessed to property lax, uicle IIouse No.20-6/lO, and. that the pc.rtioner is residing thercrn by obtaining electricity connection.

5. It is the further contention of the petitioner th tt on 26.02.2005 and also 03.O3.2005 the 1.t and 2,,d respondents have visitr:d his house and informed thc petitioner that he is required to vrrtzrte the saicl housc, since, the possession o[ the same is required tc [rt: ttrken over as per thejudgment o[ thc Sp(:cial Court in LGC.Nos.2l:; l.o 220 of 1995; and that thc petitioncr was given (3) days time to vacatc the serid house.

6. It is the contenl ion ol' the petitioner that he wits not aware of any such proceedings trelore the Special Court in L(iC.Nrrs.215 lo 22O ot 1995, and on being inlbrmed of the same, made en<1u rr:s anrl calne to 3 know that t,GC.No.215 to 22O ot 1995 were filed by diflerent persons in respect of various properties, and insofar as the petitioner property is concerned the same is covered by LGC No.220 of 1995 filed by thc 4rr, rcspondent herein, in respect of plot No. 10 in surwcy No.5.1 ol Uppal Khalsa Village, claiming to be the owncr of said plot adrncasuring 300 sq. .yards and that private parties, namelll Gaddarn Mohan Rcddy and others, have grabbed the aJoresaid land without any lawful entitlcrncnt and to declare the persons arra.yed as respondents in LGC als lirn(l grabbers and to deliver possession of the sarne.

7. Petitioner further contends that since , the itforesairl bunch of cascs arc confincd only to the application schedule property mcntioncd lherein, i.e-, being plot No.1O, insolar as the petitioner is concerned, sincc, his plot bears plot No. 102, the said order is not applicable, anri thus, the respondents No. 1 & 2 are Lo be restraindd, lrorn giving c ffcct/ execu ting the order of the Special Court in LGC-Nos.215 to 22O of 1995.

8. Petitior-rer further contends that the execution of the .iudglnent oI the Special Court can only be with reference to specific property zrs per thc dcscription given in each of the LGC case, and since, the petitioner's property is admeasuring 20O sq. yards with plot No. 102, thc order o[ thc Special Court in LGC No.220 of 1995 in respect ol plot 4 No. l0 czrnnot be implementerl or enlorced agai tst the petitionr:r's property

9. It is also contended by the petitioner that since, he is a bonaJide purchascr an<i being a third party to the said proc:edings, the Special Court is not empowered with the jurisdiction of acljurlication of thc third part1, claim petitions unlike Order XXI Rule 97 and 99 oi CPC, and thus, the pctitioner has no altcrnate remedy except to approach this Court uncler article 226 ol the Constitution of Irdia.

10. 'lhc pctitioner bv claiming as above, also co ttends that since, there is a thrcat of tleing disposscssed lrom his house at the hands ol' thc l"tand 2'.d respondcnts herein, the respondents are to be reslraint:rl from dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property, as any such action would be in violation of constitutionzLl guarantcc(l ,right under Article 300A ol the Constitution o[ India. 1 l. On behalI ol the petitioner it is also contendec that the petitioner is no way conccrned nor bothered about the result ol LGC.Nos.2I5-220 of 1995, and that the 4th respondent herein, rrhile invol<ing thc jurisdiction ol thc Special Court under the provisionr; of the Act, did not seek possession of the property as being claimed by him of plot. No. 10, 5 and as such, l-he petitioner, who is in plot No.102 having purchascd the sarne under a registered sale deed cannot be disposscssed.

12. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the order o[ the Special Court cannot be enforced by the 1't and 2'nr rcspoudent authoritics in terms o[ Rule 15 of the AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Rulcs, 1988 ([or short'the Rules'), which were in lorcc at the relcvanl point of timc.

13. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that as the Act XII of 1982 stands repealed vide G.O.Ms.No.1 13, Rcvcnuc (Land Matters) Depl., dt.0 I.06.2016, any judgrnent, decree or order passed under the Act Xtl of 1982, which remained unimplernented for the reasons or pending before any Court for execution on thc date of repealing order, shall stand transferred to the respective Civil Court heiving jurisdiction for its execution in terms of the pJovisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, anci for the said reason also, the lst and 2nd rcspondent authoritics cannot interfere with the petitioncr''s posscssion over plot No. 102 admeasuring 200 sq. yards along with the housc constructed therein.

11. Petitione r further contends that he has purchased Lhe subject property bearing ptot No.10, admeasuring 300 sq. yards under a v- 6 registered sal(: deed dt. 15.12.1999 lrom Anapareclrlv Eshwar Reddy, and the Spe<:ial Court having taken note of the facl lhat the said Sale Deed was also iirtested by the fathcr of the 1"t resr)ond(tnt bclore the Special Court, the <:laim now put forth by Gaddam Mohan Reddy and others being lhC owners o[ the land in Sy.No.54, ciln]tol be a<:ceptcd. Thus, it is contended that not only the petitioner ior:s not have any valid title to the land being plot No. 102 nor does ris vendor Ananth Reddy or for that mirtter, his predecessor in interest rtarnely G.Mohan Reddy & Others, cannot claim the plot of land belonging to him.

15. Per contre, learned counsel appearing on bt:hall' of the 4rl, respondent wou I<i su bmit that thc petitioner has :to loctts standi to maintain the prosent writ petition, having purctrased the subject property from his vendor, namely U.Ananth Redd1,, 1;y way of a registered Sale I)eecl executed on 15. 12.l9gg, b1 lvhich time the Special Court having considered the matter as to tt c claim of the 4t respondent o[ the subject plot being 10, while that o tJ.Ananth Reddy, who is 8Lh responrlent in LGC.No.220 of 1995 to be olot No. 102 in Sy. No.54 oi Uppal Khalsa Vitlage and by its judgrnent and decree dt.24.12.1997 having hetd thar the claim of Ananth Reddy of the subject plot being plot No.102, having purchased I n<ler a registercd Sale Deed, from (laddarn Bal Reddy and 3 others on 10.04.1995, to bc 7 not acceptable, thereby declaring that the subject plot is plot No. I0, and declaring the 4tr, respondent to be the owner of the said ptot, directed thc rcspondents to deliver possession ol plot No. 10, to thc appli<;:rnt therein i.e., the 4rh respondent herein, which is to an extcnt ol 300 sr1. yards in Sy.No. 54 of Uppal Khalsa Village, Uppal Mand:rl, R. R. Disl ric t.

16. On behall of thc 4th respondent it is further contendecl Lhat thc ve ndors o[ Ananth Reddy namely G.Bal Reddy and others, aggrievecl b.y thc fore said orrler of this Court in LGC.No. 22O of 1995 ancl othcr [,GCs, narnely LGC.No.2IS ol 219 of 1995 have filed a writ petition be fort: Lhis Court and insolar as LGC.No. 22O of ).995 is concerned, tht: orrler thercin, dt.24.12.1997 was subject matter of writ pctition rnde WP.No.4939 of 1998.

17. On behalf o[ the 4rh rcspondent it is further contended that thc aforcsaid writ petitions filed by the original vendors of the su bject t land/plots wcrc dismissed by this Court uide order dt. IO.OZ.2OO2, thereb.y conlirming the order of the Special Court, wherein the issue zrs to whether thc subject ptot being claimed is in effect plot no. 102 or is plot No. I0 as being claimed by this respondent, as considered by the Special Court has been affirmed, and thus, it is not open for t.hc pctitioncr now to contend that he is the owner and possessor of plot I '91 8 No. 102, having purchased the same under a rellist.ered salc decd executed by U.Ananth Recldy rvho himself lost thr claim before the Special Court as allirmcrl by the Division Bench ol this Court in W.P.No. 4<)39 of I998.

18. On the behall' of thc it is further contendcd that .respondcnts since, the order of the Special Court in LGC.No.2ilO ol 1995 having attained finality, and thc petitioncr having purchasec Lhe property lrom his vendor, who had no valid claim or title to the saicl property on the date of cxer:uLion ol Lhe sale deed in lavour of the pet lioner, neither the petitioncr <:an plcad himseli to bc a bonafide purchaser or that the order of the Spccilrl Courl does not bind him for its elecution.

19. On bchall ol thc 4tr' respondent it is further cor tended that since, the petitioner had purchased the property after he Special Court having declarc(l the subject property to be plot N,r. 10' and not Plot No. 102 as claimerl by U.Ananth Reddy and his preder essors in interest, namely Ci.Bal Rcddy and others, the petitioner reing sr.rbsequent purchaser, more so thc Spccial Cou rt having declar:d thc petitioner's vendor and his vendor as land grabbers, the petition( r cannot continue to persisl with t ht' said claim, thereby, nullifying the :rll-ect of the order o[ the Spccial Court in L(1C.No.220 of 1995 as affir ncd by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4939 of 1998. 9

20.Onbehatfoftherespondentsit'isfurthercontendedthertthe effort oi the petitioner by the present writ petition is only to prevcnt the implcrncntation of the order of the Special Court, at thc behest of the G.Bal Reddy & Others, who had lost their claim to the land in survey No.54, be[ore the Special Court as well as before this Court'

21. l,carncd counscl appcaring on bchall of the 4tt' respondent would also subrnit that the counsel appearing in the present writ petition himself had defenderi the original owner, G.Bal Reddy and others bclorc this court in the writ pctition, which was clisrnisscd by this court by its order dr. lO.O7.2OO2. 2'2. On behalf of the 4rrr respondent it is contended that since, thc special court having hctd that G. Mohan Reddy and others do not havc titte to the subject lancl, the claim of thcy having sold the property in favour of U.Ananth Rcd6y in the ycar 1995 under a regisltqred sale deed and therc after the said U.Anan th ltcddy having sold the property in favour of thc pctitioner, by itself will not confer any right as hc hirnself did not possess any valid title to thc subject property, for thc petitioner to claim of either he bcing a bonaJide purchaser or he having better title than what his vendor Possessed. 10 \ '-" - 1 I

23. By submitling as above, counsel for the 4'h rt'spondent set:ks lbr dismissal of I he rvrit pelilion.

24. Learned Government pleader fbr Assignmenl iLppearing on behall of the respective respondent(s) su bmits that the cla m of the potitioner of Rule l5 of the Rules not being appticable is not ( orrect, as the Rule l5( 1) of the Ru les, which existed ' even prior to it,; substitution uide G.O.Ms.No.539 Revenue (A&R) Department, dt 25.O8.2O12, with retrospectivc effcr:t Irom 30.05. 1998, also requires tlre revenue ol'ljcials, particularly the RDO to give effect to the decision oi thc Court.

25. Learned (iovernment Pleadt:r would further- s,uLrmit that t)y the amen(lment to Sub Clause (1) ol Rule 15 of the Ruk s, such powt:r has now been conlerred to the Civil CoLrrt, and sin<;c, al the relevant point of time, the authorities having taken steps to give cllect to the order of the Special Court in LGC.No.229 of 1995 as affirm,:rl by this l)ivision Bench of this Court in WP.No.4939 of 1988 and th r petitioner having approached this Corlrt by the present Writ Petition a rcl having obtained stay, cannot rely on G.O.Ms.No. I 13, by which, the rrct stood re pcaled, for him to claim thiit the respondents-au thori t ie s c rnnot now cnforce the orrler of the Special Court.

26. We have taken note of the respective contenl.ions urged 11

27. At the outset, with regard to the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of plot No 102 in Sy No 54 ot Uppal Khalsa Vittagc and that he having made construction of a house thercin, after purchasing the subject plot of land, it is to be noted that the sale deed under which the petitioner clainls to have purchased the subject property registcred uide Document No.9854/ 1999, is dt 15 12 1999, by which tirne the Special Court b.v its ordcr, dt'24 '12'1997 ' in LGC.No.220 of 1995 ha<i alreacly clcclared the subiect land as plot No.10 belonging to the 4tr' respondenl a.nd not that of ptot No' 102 of the 8tr' respondent therein i.e ., U.Ananth Reddy, the petitioner's vendor'

28. Furthcr, thc Special Court having alrcady held that the subject land as plot No. 10, as against the claim of pctitioner's vendor of the subject plot to be 102, an<l thc said order of the Special Court having attaincd finality b.y virtuc of this court dismissing wrt petiLion uide W.P.No.4g3goflgg8,thisCourtisoftheviewthatthepetitioner cannot continuc to persist to be the owner of the plot No' 102 having purchased the same from U.Ananth Reddy, who had lost his claim to the said plot by virtue of the order ot the Special Court dt'24'12'1997 '

29.Thoughthepetitioncrclairnshimselftobeabonaficlepurchaser having purchased the subject plot ol land and he having made a construction thercin, and the said property being assessed to municipal I 'vl t2 tax, it is to be noted that the document un(ler u hich the petitioner claims of having purchased house bearing No.20-6 1lO on plot No.102 in survey No.54 consisting of structure with ACC] roof, hzrs been executed on 15. I2. 1999, after the petitione r,s venrlor having lost his clairn before the Special Court.

30. Thus, thc claim of the petitioner of hc having purchased the plot and thereafter having made a construction thcrein. in the considered view o[ this Court is invented only for the purpose ol'Ih(] prescnt case.

31. Further, it is also to be noted that though thc petitioner claims that on purchase of tht: subject plot, he having rniLrlt: a construction thercin, it is not shown to this Court of the petiti( ncr obtaining any valid building permission lor undertaking constru( I i()n or as to the nature ol the constrllction made by him therein.

32. [,]ve n assuming that if the petitioner.had made iiny construction, the said construction made cannot be said as confe rr ing any right, title in thc property which has already been declared as not belonging to petitioncr's vendor, for the petitioner to claim valid ti l<: to the said plot of land, having pr-rrchased the same subsequcnt to :hc Spccial Court declaring the said property to be plot No.1O and during the pendency o[ 13 the writ petition rqde W.P.No.4939 ol- 1988, before Lhis Court filed by the G.Mohan ReddY & Others.

33. It would also be pertinent to note that the petitioncr's vendor, who is 8'h respondent before the Speciat Court and his vendor having lost thcir claim to the subject land in survey No.54, by allowing the claim of subsequent purchasers o[ thc-y having purchased plots, cannot seek to nullify the effcct of thc order of thc special court as affirmed by thc Division tsench, declaring the 4rr'rcspondent herein to bc the owner with a dircction to the petitioner's veIrdor and also the predecessor in interest to deliver possession to thc applicants before the Special court i.e., like the 4th respondent herein.

34. Further, by thc prcsent Writ Putition thc petitioner is seeking for stay of enforcement o[ the order of the Special Court, as affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4939 of 1998, thercby preventing the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree t obtained by him, firstly by approaching this Court assailing the said order of the Special Court, in LGC.No.22O of 1995 whcrein thc petitioner,s vendor and his predccesso| in intercst having lost their claim over the land and secondly, having failed in all their efforts, have now sought to put up the persons like the petitioner, to whom thcy ),4 \""i - have sold the subject property without any right, tilc and intorest, to approirch this Cou rt claiming to be bonaJide pu rchase rs so as to frustrale the decree holder from enjoying the fruits cI the decrec, under the guise ol borrufide purchaser.

35. Il only thc claim of the petitioner o[ he trt:ing a bormfide purchascr is to be accepted, the petitioner ought to have initiated action ?rgainst his vendor, who has sold the sublr'cl properly, alter having sullerecl an order before the Special Court anrl during the penrlcr.rcy oI furthcr proceedings before this Court, u'ithout clist:losing the sirirl lact.

36. Iru rt her, a pcrusal of the sale deed woulcl show thal the petitioner's venclor having undcrtaken to kecp the petitioner indemniliecl against all Iosses, damages and expcnses, whi<:h the pu r<:haser may sustain by reason of anybody < l:timing thr: said property, the petitioner cannot be allowed to plea, I himsell to be a bonaJide pu rch ast: r. 37 . Since, the sale deed, under which the petitioncr claims lo have purchased thc subject property bearing plot No.102 along with construction therein bearing House No.20-6/ IO on plot No. 102 in sur-vt:.y No.54, and by the date of execution of the s:rlr dr:ed itseli since, 7 15 the petitioner,s having lost his title, the petitioner instead of resisting the execution of the order of the Spccial court ought to have initiated sleps against his vendor, at least irnmcdiatcty coming to know of tht: order of thc Special Court on rcspondent Nos' I & 2 visiting his property, on 26.O2.2OO5 and 03.03.20O5 or any time thercafter'

38. As it is not shown to this Court of the petitioncr initiating any action against his vcndor i.e ., U.Ananth Reddy for cxecutirlg a sale deecl in rcspcct of a property, for which hc clocs not havc a titlc, as of datc, tlris court is of the view that the claim of the pctitioncr of hc being a borafide purchaser cannot bc accepted, and on the other hand' thc court is compelled to draw inference that thc execution of salc deed in lavour of the petitioner and filing of the present.writ petition by the p(rtitioner is only to entangle the subject property in multifarious litigation, so as to defeat the claim of decree holder' t .

39. Insofar as claim of the petitioner that since, by G O'Ms'No' 113' dr.0 1.06.2016, the Act stood repealed antl all pending matters including execution should be initiatcd belore r<:spective civil courts, it. is to be notcd that the reason and ground for thc petitioner approachingthisCourtbythepresentwritPctitionisthcexecution proceedinginitiatedbyRevenucDivisionalOflicer,whercbythe 16 \ -" - 1 I petitioner was directed to handover the propert-y in three da-ys, upon initiation of such execution proceedings only petitioner rushed to this Courl an<l ol)taine(l stay. Thus, it cannot be s:tid no excclrtion proceerlings \^,ere initiated, for which the 4rr,rcspotirlcnt is requirerl to approzrch Cir,il Court after the repeal of the Act rrclc C.O.Ms.No. I13, dr.0 r.06 20 16.

40. l,'urthcr, the p(:titioner on respondents-aL thorities initiating action, h:tving approached this Court and obtainirrg sta.y, canltol l)c pcrrnittcrl to take advantage of the repeal of the Act, subseque ntl,y, to claim anrl r:ontend that the 4rlr respondent her,:in is rcquirccl to approach Civil Court . If the said plea urged is z ct:epled, the same would amount this Court putting stamp of approvrrl in nultilying the cffect of tho ordcr oi th(r special court. Since, it is o. a<:count of st?r.y grante(l bv this court in writ petition filed by the pctitlrpt.r herein, this court is o[ thc view that the proceedings would hav:: to (iontinue rrom whcre the-v ha'e been interdicted by this court lor;iiving etfect to the order of the Spccial Court in LGC.No.220 of 1995.

41. Accordingl-y. this Court is of the view that the writ petition as filerl is devoid oi merit ancl is accordingly dismissed. No o-clt:r irs to costs. 7 Consequently, miscellancous pctrtions pending, it any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER t To Reddy District The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ran The Mandal Revenue Officer, UPPa I lr/tandal,, RangaReddY District. The Special Court for cases under A P.Land Grabbing, (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. i'i,"-cdi t" GP FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad lOUTl Oi," CC to SRt V.VETXRTARAMANA' Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI KESHAV HULSURKAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI J.P.SREEKANTH, Advocate (OPUC Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 6 7 B SA BS W t I HIGH COURT DATED:09 t06t2025 ORDER 1 0 sEP 2125 WP.No.4397 of 2OOs \. 3 n + n I l6 a! DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 \t', aI \q