The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to change the nature and boundaries of the application schedure rand in LGC No 20 of 19g9 and not to raise any structures or create any 3rd pa(y claim by way of sale charges mortage etc on the same pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WVMP . NO:590 oF 2013) Between: Dr M.S Raju, S/o Venkatapathi Raju H.No.B-2-120112lA/8 Jubilee Hills Society Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND Hyderabad '1 . State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Mandal Revenue Ofiicer, Shaikpet Mandal,

2. K.Krishnam Raju, S/o Dr.Ranga Raju 8-2-'120lfu4 Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad 3. Dr.Vijayalakshmi, Beside the House 8-2-293l\2lA Road No 9 Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad

4. Dr Damoder Reddy, S/o. B.Narayan Reddy Mahalasa Building 8-2-2931821A Road No 9 Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad

5. Sri Vishunu Raju, Besides Premises 8-2-'l20l12lNB Jubilee Hills Society,Hyderabad

6. Smt M.Laxmi Raju, W/o. Dr M.S Raju 8-2-12011lNB Jubilee Hills Society,Hyderabad

7. Sri I\4.B.Ali Khan, Beside Premises 8-2-12011121N12 Jubilee Hills Society, Hyderabad

8. G Vital, 8-2-12O11121N12 Jubilee Hills Society,Hyderabad 9:"Sri & N Raju'& Smt B.Bharathi, 8-2-12011121N 14 Road No 9 Jubilee Hills Society,Hyderabad

10.Dr B.V Raju & Smt B.Bharathi, 8-2-12O11121N14 Road No 9 Jubilee Hills Society,Hyderabad '1 1.Smt Alakanda P.Pai, Wio. Prakash PaiB-2-293187lA,r102 Road No I Banjara hills,Hyderabad 1 2. Yalamanchili Satyanarayna Rep.by its His GPA Holder, Sri Venkateswara Rao H.No.22 Samtrat Colony West Marredpally Secunderabad '13.Y.Kanta Durga Jayalaxmi Prasunamba, W/o. Satyanarayana Rep.by its their GPA Holder l.Venkateswara Rao,Seetharamaiah,H.No 22 Samtrat Colony,West Maredpally,Secunderabad

14. K.Usha Rani, 8-2-1 20/1 121N15-16 Road No 9 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

15.N.S Chakravarthi, S/o Late N.V.S. N Rao H.No.8-2-12011121N13 Jubilee Hills Society Hyderabad (Respondents No.2 to 15 are not necessary parties in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim directions granted in wp Mp No. 25295/2009 in wp No I 9369/2009 dated 1 5.09.2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: Gp FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.1,5,6,10,13 & 14: Ms. SAMHITHA NIMMALA, REP. FOR SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel forthe Respondent No.B: SRI P.RAJAM RAJU . The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITIONNo .19369 0F 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon'bLe Sn Justice Ldrmi NaraAano Alishett,) This Writ Petition is Iiled aggrieved by the order dated

17.O4.2OO9 in L.G.C.No.20 of 1999 passed by the Special Court under Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, 'Special Court').

2. Heard learned Government pleader for Assignment appearing for the petitioner-State, Sri p.Rajam Raju, f"*nea corn""l for respondent No.g and Ms. Samhitha Nimmala, learned counsel, representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.1, 5, 6, iO, 13 and 14.

3. Petitioner herein filed LGC No.2O of 1999 against the respondents herein alleging that respondents grabbed the land admeasuring 6484 sq.mtrs in TS No.1 Block_B, Ward Ng 9 an{ ,S-N9,LlIl9/1, Btock-H, Ward No.9, corretated to Sy.No.4O3 of Shaikpet village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, which is classified as ,Government poramboke,. 4. In the concise statement, petitioner averred that Shaikpet village of Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District \ /llr.r ({ ,/azr trp \Dt)1.iai:Dt, was formerly a Sarf-e-Khas village and after merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Dilr'ani in 1358 Fasli, the administration of the same was transferred to Diwani; that according to Sethwar, there were 353 survey numbers in the said Village; that Sy.No.129 consists of an extent of Acs.32B8.O2 guntas, which is classified as 'Government land' at Banjara Hills; that during 133 1 Fasli, one supplementary sethrvar was issued sub-dividing Sy'No' 129 into ten sub-divisions as Sy.Nos.129ll to 129 llO; that Sy.No.129/l consists of Acs.3O97'39 gts, and balance extent of Acs.190.03 gts., rvas transferred to Sy'Nos 129/2 to 129 l1O; that during 1334 Fasli, another sr'rpplementary sethwar was issued deleting Sy.No'353 and in 1346 Fasli' one more supplementarl' sethwar was issued deleting sub- divisions of S1'.No. 129 i.e., Sy.Nos. 129 I I to 1'29 I lO and 52 new survey numbers were added from 353 to 404 in respect of total extent of land i.e', Acs'32BB 02 gts'; and after issuance of supplementary sethwar, Sy'No 129/ 1 corresponding to Sy.No.403 consists to an extent of Acs.3079.37 guntas. 3 AKS,J dLNAJ tt.P. No.l9J69 o[ 2009

4.1 . It was further averred that Sarf_e_Khas regime conducted revised survey and in the year 1352 Fasli, the lands in old Sy.Nos. 129 lll to I2g/gZ are shown as .patta 1and" as per correlation statement (Vasool Baqui Register); that during the years 1965 and 1970, town survey was conducted under A.p. Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act, 1923) and the above land was correlated to T.S.No.llllC/t, Block-H, Ward No.9 and T.S.No.1, Block-B, Ward No.9 and the same was published in Hyderabad Gazettee No.22, dated 1g.04. 1977. 4.2. It was further averred that application schedule land fa1ls in the above survey numbers and correlated to Sy.No.4O3 of Shaikpet village, which is classified as 'Government Poramboke, situated at Road No.2, Baljara Hills, Hyderabad; that Government earlier filed Land Grabbing Case Nos.72 11991 and 145/ 1985 against Manga Devi ald Rajendra prasad, respectively, for itlegal occupation of the government land in the above TS Nos. and both the cases were allowed by the Land Grabbing Court; that in the month of Januaqr, 199g, revenue officials have conducted physical verihcation and noticed 4 ALS,J & I \t,1.J t(P No ) tl69 ol )0a9 ,,. that the government lands were encroached bY the respondents therein. Therefore, LGC No'20 of 1999 was filed to declare the respondents as 'land grabbers' and further,adirectiontodelivervacantpossessionoftheland along with af1 benelits they have accrued to the Government.

5. Respondent No 1 hied counter resisting the application and further, averred that the application schedule property forms part of Plot No' 102' admeasuring Acs.2.15 gts., of Shaikpet village, u'hich was originally a Sarf-e-khas property and the same \^'as sold to one Abdul Samad by Jubilee Hills Municipalitl' vide File No'164 of 1352 Fasli and the said sale was confirmed by the Sarf-e- khas authority through Letter No'24 4 12 dated 24th Isfandar 1352 Faslt and said Abdul Samad sold the said plot No.1O2 to T.V'Ramachandraiah under registered sale deed bearing document No'571/68' d'at'ed'.24 02 in turn, T.V.Ramachaldraiah sold a portion of land admeasuring 5406 square yards to one Pradeep Kumar Lohade under registered sale deed bearing document no.2l72l7O, dated 14 10 1970; that the said Pradeep l,OOa 5 AKS,-J & 1N,1,.] wP No.l9t69 or200, Kumar Lohade divided the said land into plots by duly obtaining layout permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) and sold an extent of 552 square yards with H.No.g-2 l2O/l12lA/8 in favour of her husband-Mantena Suryanarayana Raju under registered sale deed bearing document No.2O4g /82 dated 21.o4.1982.

5. I . It was further averred that when MCH failed to release the .final layout to the vendor of the application schedule property, he filed W.p.No.4924/19g4 before the erstwhile High Court of A. p. , and the sarne was a-llowed vide judgment dated 26.10.1984 and ultimately, MCH has released the final layout in the year 19g4; that respondent No. 1 obtained permission for construction from the MCH vide sanctioned permit No.67/100, dated 12.02.19g5 and as per the proceedings No.120l t2/A/2/8/83, dated 04.04. 1985, the land falls under residential zone; that the lands are in continuous occupation and possession of private parties since 1942 and the Government was never in possession nor exercised any ownership rights over the application schedule property at any point of time; that 6 AKSJ & I'NA 'I tl P. No 19369 al20A9 GovernmenthasnotconductedpropertownsurveyaSper the Act, L923', andthat no notice has been served on her or her predecessors-in-title under Sections 9 and 1O of the Act, 1923. Therefore, the respondents are ''not bound by orders of Survey Officers' Tou'n Survey Record is not implemented. in the revenue records under Section 84 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act' 1317 Fasli and the District Collector has not taken steps for implementation of town survey record tiil date'

5.2. Respondent No' 1 further averred that sl-re has paid house tax to the Municipal Authorities upto date and that application scheduie property is treated as private property by the Government and non-agricuitural lard tax was also paid. Therefore, it is unfair on the part of the petitioner to claim that the land under occupation of the respondents is a 'government land' and that the responclents are 'land grabbers'' : . r i r i i i ! r r r :, .. r , . , \ i : i i t.ii - .-.r;. 5.3. It was also averred that atl the decisions and orders passed by the erstwhile Sarf-e-khas authorities under the Nizam was binding on the Present Government has no jurisdiction to regime of HEH the Government arrd the '7 /1KS.J & LNA,.I wP No t9169 oJ)009 question or reopen the matter and the lands have already been transferred by the HEH, the Nizam, who was the owner and custodian of the property prior to the merger of Sarf-e-khas into Diwani in favour of Abdul Samad in the year 1352 Fasli. It was further averred that Government has never raised aly objection or claimed the application schedule property at any point of time within the statutory period of limitation and the possession of the respondents and her predecessors-in-title over the application schedule property has been open, continuous and uninterrupted and thq:efore, they have perfected title by adverse possession and thus, prayed to dismiss the application.

6. Respondent No.2 filed.counter denying the allegations made in the concise statement and has raised similar pleas as that of respondent No.1 and further, contended that she purchased the house bearing No.8-2-269 / 3 I A admeasuring 510.38 sq.yards situated in plot No. 101 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad from one Mir Wajid Ali and others under registered sale deed bearing document No.44 12/g5, dated 10.U&i985 and another house bearing No.g-2-269 l3ll I 8 .lll., ,1 /.\:i./ tt' I'1 Nr lglat t)i 20lt admeasuring 312.66 square yards from the same vendors under registered sale deed bearing d'ocument No'30 1/ 1987 dated 1 1.O2.1987 and both the houses are situated in Plot No.1O I erstwhile Jubilee Hil1s, Municipalitl' Shaikpet' Banj ara Hills, HYderabad'

6.1. Respondent No.2 further averred that Plot No'101 admeasuring Acs.2.03 gts, of Shaikpet village was originally a Sarf-e-khas property and the sarne was sold by the Sarf-e-khas authorities to one Azamuddin Ansari ald thesaleu,asconfirmedthroughletterdatedS.t.Isfandar i352 Fasli. It rvas further averred that her vendors applied for exemption from the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Special Officer, Competent Authority' ULC, Govt. of A P', Hyderabad vide proceedings No.E1/ \O2OOl76, dated 2l'I2'1981 declared her vendors as joint owners and possessors and thereafter' her vendors have obtained layout permission uide petmil No' 1a0/76' builains. dated 31.08. rea7; a4d. th,?l l: has Tls:ly:ted ,1, by obtaining permission from the MCH' vide permit No.175l6sl87, dated 25'll'1987 ' b, .il 9 AJ:S,J & LNA,J w.P- tio.l%69 of 2009

7. Respondent Nos.7 & 9 adopted the counters filed by the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 10. Respondent No.15 adopted the counter fited by respondent No.6. B. Respondent No.5 in the counter averred that her husband-Dr. M. S.Raju is the absolute owner of House No.8-2-120/l12lAl8 admeasuring 552 square yards situated in PIot No.102, erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.2942182 dated 21.04.1992 from its lawful owners ald possessors.

9. Respondent No.6 in the counter averred that he is absolute owner of H.No.8-2-120 lI22/A113 admeasuring 356.2 sq.yards situated in plot No. i02 of erstwhile Jubilee Hi1ls Municipality, Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed bearing document No.5945/g5, dated 12.t2.t985. 10 Respondent No.8 in the counter averred that he and his wife have purchased an extent of 475.53 sq.yards l0 bearing H.No'B-2- 12 O I lI2l Al14 situated in Plot No' 102 of erstwhile Jubilee Hi1ls Municip ality ' Shaikpet' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad from its la*{ul owner under registered sale deed bearing document No'5990/85' dated 14.08. i985. 11. Respondent No' 10 i'n the counter averred that he rs the absolute owner and Possessor of H.No.B 2-2931821 in Plot A/101, admeasuring 748 square ya-rds situated No.101 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality' Shaikpet' Banjara Hills, Hyd'erabad' having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed bearing document No'2a7 3 I 91" dated 19'09' 199 1' 12. Respondent Nos 11 and 12 in the counter averred that they purchased an extent of 552 sq 1'ards bearing H.No.B-2-12 Olll2 lAl lI situated in Plot No'102 of erstwhile Jubilee Hiils Municipality' Shaikpet' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad' from its lau{ul owner under registered sale d.eed bearing document No'2019/93' dated

28.O4.1993 ,,1'' :1. . ,,1K5-J & I.NA.J W P No lgla, ol2A0a

13. Respondent No.l4 in the counter averred that they purchased a_n extent of 5S2 sq.yards bearing H.No.8-2-120 /112/Al8 situated in plot No.1O2 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality, Shaikpet, Banj ara Hills, Hyderabad from its lawful owner under regist-ered sale deed bearing document No.2942 182, dated 21.O4.19g2.

14. Basing on the above pleadings of both the parties, the Special Court framed the following issues: I ) Whether the applicant is the ou.ner of the application schedule property ? 2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding ? 3) Whether the respondents in any event, prescribed title by adverse possession ? 4) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982 ? 5) In case of success, whether the applicant is entitled to compensalion for wrongful possession and profits as claimed ? 6) To what relief ?

15. To substantiate its claim, the applicant_State examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A12: On behalf of respondents, respondent Nos.5, IS, 6, 2, 11, 10, B, 15 and father of respondent No. I were examined as RWs. 1 to 9, respectively and Exs.B 1 to B98 were marked. t2 ,4K5.1 d. l l.1.l tt/ P. L o. I I J61) o[ 2009

16. The Special Court, on due appreciation of pleadings of both the parties, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, alslvered issue No 1 in favour of applicant and held that applicant has established its title to the subject lands. On issue No'2, the Special Court has held that the rival title set up by the respondents is not true and valid' The Special Court, while coming to above conclusions' has recorded the fotlowing observatrons: "174- lrt view of the above d'iscussion' Exs BlT' B18' B39 to El43 are admissible in evidence Those documents show that plot no 1O2 was allotted to Abdul Samad. The documents hled by the respondents cstablish that plot no 1O2 was allotted to on ar application to Abdul Samad There is no proof that Government demarcated the allotted plot and Government issued patta in his favour' Therefore' thc respondcnts failed to establish their titk: to thc application schedule land Abdul Samad sold total extent o[ iand to T V Ramachandraiah under registered sale deed Ex.B2 thereafter' T V Ramachaldraah sold a portion of land to Pradeep Kumar Lahode under Ex 83 to an extent of 5406 square yards Pradeep Kumar Lahode made a layout and sold plots' MCFI approved the layout and also gave permissions for construction o[ houscs to the respondents' who purchased plots from Pradeep Kumar Lahode lt is establishecl that the respondents a're purchasers of the respective extents as stated in the concise statement' On the principle of 13 A](S,J & LNA ,I W.P. Na-tst6s ot20i9 tackrng' the respondents have perfected title to the application schedule property by adverse possession. Application schedule iand is merged with the Government. Respondents tailed to establish title to ttie application schedule land.

17. On issue No.3, the Special Court has held that respondents have perfected their title by adverse possession and on issue No.4, it has held that the respondents are not ,land grabbers,. The Special Court has recorded following observations: "ln the case re respondents esrablished possessron to the application schedule lald. The respondents also established that the land has been in continuous possession for more than 30 years on the doctrine of tacking and in view of judgrnent of Hon,ble High Court in Wp No.2788 B/tggl which is marked as Ex.Bl d,aled Og.O2.2OO I the respondents are entitled to claim that they are not land grabbers. The respondent s lre ln possession as purchasers from the persons who made a layout and the layout was approved by the Municipal Corporation. Hence, it cannot be sard that they are in unlaw{ul possession. More over since 1352 Fasli the applicant was not in possession of the land. The respondents are in possession under bona frde claim of right title to tJre property. There is no act of tand grabbing on the part of the respondents.

193. Silence on the part of the applicalt for more tharr 50 years gives an impression to the general l4 AKS J & L'\'A'J ttr f. t,to t9t69 oI)04, petitlon public that it is not government land and that it rs a private 1and RW.3 deposed that with a mala frde intention the MRO, Golconda, had issued Exs 82 notice under Section 7 of APLE Act dated 07 .Og.1g92. He gave rcply to the said notice' Thercafter the matter was carried to Hpn'ble High Court in WP No.7930 of 1995; the High Court had and directed the allowed the said with the lau{ui Government not possession of the respondents The applicant carried the matter in Writ Appeal and the High Court dismissed said Writ Appeal with a direction to the respondents therein to file an appeal against the ordcrs passed by the MRO before the appropriate authoritY ard accordingly, appeal has been preferred but no ordcrs have been passed til1 date ald in the mean time, tl-re present LGC has been frled by the applicant. interfere

194. From the documentary evidence produced' it is clear Government issued notice demanding payment of NALA Ta-r in 1995. The government issued notice under Section 7 of LE Act in 1992 to the respondent' No steps have been taken to evict the vendors of the respondents who are in occupation of the land since a long time prior to 1992 This case is frled in 1999 that too after LGC 72191 was allowed' The MRO' who is examined as Pw l deposed Lhat he was not aware whether arry orders were passed for implementation of town survey' The revision survey was conducted in 1347 Fasli and it was completed in 1352 Fasli. It was not implemented in revenue records. As revenue records did not reveal that it is a Government iand ald the MCH have granted ) J l5 AKS.J & LN/I,J w P No 19369 of2009 permission for the layout made by the vendors of the respondents, and there were two sales prior to their purchase, the respondents purchased plots in a layout. Therefore, they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. It cannot be said that these respondents created documents to grab the land. As there were two sa.les prior to their purchase, they purchased the plots. Hence, it cannot be said that wrth an intention to grab the land they purchased it. Hence, they are entitled to claim title by adverse possession even if Abdul Samad had no title. If a person occupied the lald with an intention to grab the lald by creating documents, he cannot claim adversc possession basing on sale deed. There was no intention on the part of the respondents to grab the land at the time they purchased the land. Having satisfied that Abdul Samacl was in possession of the larrd since 1352 Fa.lsi, and sold the land and subsequently two sale transactions took place, the respondents purchased the lartd. Hence, even if title of Abdul Samad is defective, they can claim title by adverse possession. In arry event, tJ-e applicant is not entitled to get any relief as it failed to establish possession for more than 30 years. In any event the applicant carnot contend that the respondents are land grabbers and that they are not entitled to clalm title by adverse possession.,,

18. Aggrieved by the judgment dated: 17.O4.2OO9, of Special Court, the applicant_State filed present writ petition. "\ 16 : ., \, i)i.),' :'! ) lg. Learned Government Pleader for petitioner principally contended that Special Court did not appreci:rte the evidenceand.materialplacedonrecord,moreparticularly, Exs.Al lo A12 and has come to erroneous conclusion that respondents are not land grabbers' He further contended that once Special Court held that respondents cl:rimed to be the successors in-interest of an allottee from the Sarfekhas authorities, the burden is on the respondents to show that the allotment of land in favour of their true and valid ' however' predecessors-in-title is respondents failed to discharge their burden lt is also contendedthatthoughSpecialCourtheldthat respondents have no titie to the iand in question ' however erredinconcludingthatrespondentshaveperfectedtheir title by adverse possession' which is per se illegal; that Specia't Court ought to have considered that the plea of adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and laqr' and a person who claims adverse possession shouid show the natnre of Possessron and also, whether the factum of possession was known to the real owner and the same ls oyo and undisturbed. t1 AKS.,I & LNA.J tl.f- N0 I9Ja9 af 2009

20. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Special Court failed to consider the fact that when the respondents have claimed title of the application schedule property through registered sale deeds, they carnot turn round ald take a plea of adverse possession' He further contended that the special Court failed to consider the fact that except the sale deeds to prove their title or their predecessors' title, the respondents did not produce any material to prove their possession over the schedule property since 1942. He further contended that the documents filed by the respondents in proof of their possession are subsequent to the year 1982 and no document is filed to prove their prior possession or their predecessors and this aspect was not properly construed or appreciated by the Special Court. 2L. Learned Government Pleader for Petitioner State relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and anotherL, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: ' (2olo) 2 scc 461 18 AK!,J & t.NA J u'.P. No 19J69 of 2009 the State alld "In this context, it is necessary to remember that it is well-nigh impossible for instrumentalitres including the 1oca1 authorities to l<eep everyday vigilance/watch over vast tracts of open land owned by them or of which they are the public trustees. No amount of vigil can stop encroachments ald unauthorised occupation of public lald by unscrupulous elements, who act like r,.ultures to grab such lald, raise illegal constructions and, at times, succeeded in manipulating the State apparatus for getting their occupation/possession and construction regularised. It is our considered view that where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection. Any laxity in this regard may rersult in destruction of right/title of the State to in'rmovable property and give an upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers." Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 22 contended that respondents' predecessors-in-title purchased the property from erstwhile Sarf e khas authorities arrd the said sale was confirmed and in view of merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fas1i, the said ]..''-,.L:.-. transactions / alienations are not open for scrutiny at this point of time. It is further contended that title and possession of the application schedule property can be tr7dd from the year 1942 and the respondents, on the i l9 AKSJ & I-N,1,J W P. No 19369 of 2009 strength of Exs.B I to B9B, have proved their continuous and uninterrupted possession and, therefore, the Special Court has rightly dismissed the application frled by the petitioner herein. Learned counsel further..contended that the respondents have purchased the application schedule property through registered documents arld their predecessors-in_title have obtained layout permission from the MCH and the respondents have constructed the houses by duly taking permission from the MCH and have also been paying taxes, which clearry proved the continuous possession of the respondents and therefore, application iiled by the applicant is not majntainable. 23. Learned counsel for respondents further contended that the purported survey conducted by the Government is contra-ry to the Act, 1923 and was conducted without notice to the respondents or their predecessors arrd further, the said survey was not implemented under Section 84 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, and therefore, town survey has to be construed as not come into ogeration. 20 u P AKS,J ,\ I,NA ] 1936, a[204, ^a

24. Learned counsel for respondents further contended that judicial review under Article 226 of the Cor-rstitution of India while adjudicating the land grabbing c ase is vetl' limitedandtheHighCourtcannotsitasanAppellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence and the High Court can interfere with the judgment of the Special Courts/ Tribunals only where, (i) relevant material is excluded and irrelevarrtmaterialisconsidered,(ii)thereisanerror manifest and apparent on the face of the proccedings' such as,whenitisbasedonclearmisreadingorutterdisregard of the provisions of law and (iii) grave injustice or gross failure ofjustice has occasioned thereby'

25. In support of his contentions, learnerl counsel for respondents relied upon the following decisions: i) ii) iii) iv) Syed Yakoob v' K'S'Radhakrishnan2; and others v. SPecial Court under Y.Jangamma A.P.land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at HYderabad and others3; Potteries Pvt. Ltd' V' Collector, Ilyderabad Hyderabad B.N.Manga Devi and another v' State of Andhra Pradesh and otherss; District and anothera; 1tt63 SCC Online sc 24 t 2009 sCC Online AP 854 1 2ool scc online AP 397 j 20l I scc online AP 442 21 AKS,j & I,NA.J t|' P No 191t9 of2009 v) vii) viii) ix) Mohd.Siddiq Ali Khan and another etc. v. Shahsun Finance Ltd. and another6; Gouni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P., and othersz; Arif Noorul Hassan and others v. State of A.p., Revenue and otherssl The State of A.P. v. Smt. G.Venkamma and otherss Tadi Surya Rao Vs. Dr. Gurubhavatrila Ramakrishna Rao and anotherro

26. In Syed Yakoob (2 supra), the Hon,ble Apex Court held that the findings of fact as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned by writ jurisdiction; that an error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be corrected by a writ of certiorari, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be; that a hnding of fact can be corrected by a writ if it is shown that in recording such a finding, the Tribunal erroneously refused to admit the admissible evidence, erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence; that if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, it amounts to error of law and can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.

27. In Tadi Surya Rao (9 supra), a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held that the findings of the 6 2005 scc ontine AP l8? ' lzoo+1 z scc :es t z0oz scc online ap;sr " 2O0l (l) APLJ 357 (HC) 'o t99otz) npLJ 2st (itc) 22 ;1(-\, / (t IIil.J t| P No 1t)3(q oI20t), Special Court based on proper appreciation of evidence are final and that any enquiry by the High Court of a nature akin to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is forbidden' 28. In Y.Jangamma (3 supra)' a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A'P', held as under: "Therefore, though there is a tendency on the ptut of thc Lawyers to argue writ petitions frled agarnst the orders of Special Court as appeals, we carnot conside: thc writ petition as an appeal The judicial revie'"r" is pclmissiblc to a limited extent whcn i) the relevant mirteri:L1 is excluded and irrclevant material is considered ii) therc is an error malifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice is occasioned therebY "

29. In Hyderabad Potteries Prrt' Ltd' (4 supra)' learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of A'P ' held a as under: ..1 A.P- Srln'eY and "A bare reading of scheme of the it clear that the Boundaries Act, 1923 would make survey made under the said Act is marnly intendcd for lrre purposes of identification of the lcrnds and fr-xation of boundaies. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detail enquiries witb regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the lands lt is neither the object nor the scheme of thc said Act' There is no presumption that every entry made in the TSLR shall be presumed to be true until contrary is ',' 23 AKS,J & LNA,J vP. Na 19369 oI2009 proved as in the case of entries made in the record of rights under the provisions of A.p. Record of Rights in Land Act, 7971. It is not a record of right. There is no such provision in the Andhra pradesh Survey ald Boundaries Act, i,923."

30. In B.N.Manga Devi (5 supra), a Division Bench of erstwhiie High court of A.p., held that entries contained in Town Survey Land Record cannot be the fountainhead for doubting the right, title ald interest of any person in respect of aly lald.

31. In Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan (6 supra), a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.p., held as under: "l "lr.j;;;-;;;." - the factum ;" ;"il "That unle_ss the ailegations made in the application satisfy and attract the ingredients "t":9 grabbing" as provided for under S.;iio.," 2(d) and (e) of the Act, mere repetition of words ..land =9 grabbing" would not be enough- for taking ;;;r;. 9f 1 ca9e, r.rnless that statement or allegatlons satisfies -;;-i;. both the ingredients intention. As has been held in Shaliu onono gila"r., Case (2003 AIHC 22gt) (supra), that an ..t oi turrO rnvotves .taking of any land belonging ro i.::^:T LJovernment, etc., or any other private p"i"or1 :iill:rl:"dty, unfarrty, greedily, iitr.". r"?"iuiy, I]:rji"y^: y,li"rupulously. or otherwise but without any rawrul entttlement. Taking possession of the land without any lawful entitlement thereto is the sine-ira non to hold a person to be a lalrd grabber. Ii_"r-i. noted, to make out a case that ..-p"."o, i" ;-iaid grabber the applicant must aver .rrd p.or" b"th A. ingredients - the factum as well ,s- me intertlon. Unless a person unauthorisedly ,"d ;th;;;-;y lawful entitlement thereto enteri or i.t rJ." l"t.- land forcibly or otherwise, he cannot ;" h.lJ;;; " . 24 .,1(S../ & 1-rv.'1. / W P No t9t69 of)Aaq land grabber. The emPhasis is on talan without ar1y lawfui entitlement." ossessl0n

32. In Gouni Satya Reddi (7 supra)' the Honble Apex Court held. that land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession iliegally ancl without any lawful entitlement'

33. In Arif Noorul Hussain (8 supra)' the Division Bench oferstwhileHighCourtofA.P.,heldthatanapplication under Section 8(1) of the Act' should proceed on specifically averred premise that the applicant was in possession all along or till a particular time and further the averment to the effect that there is a disposition (sic' Dispossession) by the respondents thereunder in the recent past without any right, title and interest as such' The absence of details in regard to arry of these aforesaid aspects is quite fata-l and the application s have to be rejected. Consideration:

34. The petitioner claimed that application schedule property was part of old Sy'No '129 / l ' which correlates to Sy.No.4O3 of Shaikpet village, Road No'3' Banjara Hills' 't: 25 AKj,J & L\A,J fil-P. No 19369 oI 2t)09 which is classified as .Government poramboke,; that originally, the lands are part of Shaikpet village of Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, which was formerly a Sarf_e_ Khas village and after merger of Sarf-e Khas in 1358 Fasri, the Administration of the same was transferred to Diwani and that subject land and others lands were shown as patta lands as per correlation statement. Further, the town survey was conducted during the years 1965 and 1970 as per the Act, 1923 ald the above land is correlated to T.S.No. I/I/Cli, BIock_H, Ward No.9 and T.S.No. 1, Block_ B, Ward No.9 ald the same was published in Hyderabad Gazettee No.22, dated 1g.04.7922; that respondents are the encroachers of the application schedule land; that earlier Land Grabbing Case Nos.72ll99l and 145/1985 were filed against the iliegal occupiers, who traced out their title to Abdul Samad and both the cases were allowed by the Special Court. 35r "'It-=iS also the case of petitioner that the respondents are tracing the title to Abdul Samad and, therefore, in the light of decision of the Special Court in LGC Nos.72/1991 and 145/ 1gg5, the respondents have to be declared as 26 IKSJ & I'NA J V P. tt,. 1t369 al20A9 lard grabbers. Petitioner has placed on record Exs'Al to A12, which are attested copy of District Gazettee ' Extracts of TSLR, copies of judgments in LGC'No7211997 and LGC.No.9/2000, pahani for the year 1981-82' copy of acknowledgment of notice under Survey and Boundaries Act and attested copy of Hyderabad District Gazette ' etc ' 36. On the other hand' the respondents claimed that originally, Abd'ul Samad became the owner of Acs'2 15 guntas of land forming part of Sy'No' 102 and the same was furchl3ed from Jubilee Hills Municipality vide File No' 164 of 1352 Fasli and the same was confirmed by the Sarf-e Khas authority through letter No'244 l2' dated 24th Isfandar1352Faslr.Subsequently,AbdulSamadsoldthe landstoT.V.Ramachandraiah,whointurn,soldanextent of 54O6 square yards to Pradeep Kumar Lohade; that PradeeP Kumar Lohade obtained iayout permission and sold small extents to the respondents under vanous registered sale deeds from the year- 1982 ' The respondents further claimed that they constructed houses in their resPective Plots bY duly obtaining permission from the MCH; that they and their predecessors-in-title have been tn---- 27 AKS.J & LNA,J w P. No 1rJ69 of2009 open, continuous, uninterrupted possession since their purchase and thus, they have perfected their title by adverse possession. It is also claimed that the application is barred by limitation since the Government never raised any objection or claimed the subject lands, within the statutory period of limitation. The respondents have filed Exs.B1 to 898, which include registered sale deed executed in favour of Abdul Samar, registered sale deeds executed in favour of T.V.Ramachandraiah and pradeep Kumar Lohade and subsequent registered sale deeds, layouts, municipal permissions for construction, water connections, electricity bills, property tax bills, sanctioned layout plan, challans, etc.

37. Since the respondents have not preferred Appeal, there is no necessity to adjudicate the title of the application schedule iands. Writ petition is filed principally aggrieved by the conclusion of the Special Court that the respondents have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Petitioner contended that plea of adverse possession is mixed question of fact and law and a person who claims adverse possession should establish the same. l(-t.J d Lr\',]., tl !' t;) 193(,, al2nA9

38. It is the case of the Petitioner that earlier Government filedLGCNos.T2oflgglagainstthevendorofthe respondent i e , Abdul Samad and the same was aliowed by the Special Court vide order dated 29'09'1995' However' the order passed in LGC No'721199 l was set aside by this Court vide judgment d'ated 09'02'2001 in W'P'No'27888 of 1995 and claim of the Government was rejected in respect of the said lands Similarly' LGC No'9 of 2OOO filed for another extent in the same Tou'n Survey number u'as allbwed by the 'special Court uid'e judgment dated 09.04.2003, however, the judgment was Set aside by this Court in W P'No 9401 of 2003 vide order dated 30'04'2007 applying ratio iaici down in the judgment passed in W.P'No.27888 of 1995' 39. It is also evident from record that aggrieved by the order in W.P'No 27BBB of 1995' the State Government has Appeal (Civil) No'4258 of 2001 preferred an appeal Court, however, as the Partres the aPPeal was Honble APex before the 1n agreed to their ProPerty, regalarize vide order dated 08.12'2008 with dismissed direction The State Government has also challenged a specific AKS,J & LNA,J V P. No.19169 of )009 order passed in Wp No.94O1 of 2003 before the Hon,ble Apex Court vide Civil Appln.No.34g1 of 2OOg and the same was dismissed lor non-prosecution as the matter was settled out of the Court and, therefore, th9 orders passed by the erstwhile High Court of A.p. in W.p.No.27g8B of 1995 and W.P.No.94O j of 2003 hold good ald the hndings recorded by the High Court that respondents have perfected their title by adverse possession and their possession being tacked to Abdul Samad is applicable to the present case as we1l.

40. The respondents have placed voluminous documents on record in proof of their possession, which can be traced to Abdul Samad from the year 1942, who purchased the land from Jubilee Hills Municipality. The respondents have also placed registered document executed by Abdul Samad in favour of T.V.Ramachandraiah and subsequent sale deed in favour of praveen Kumar Lohade and thereafter, to the resliondenti -i-r";"ft. It is also evident from the ,."ora that a lay out was obtained from MCH ald permissions for construction of houses were obtained, structures were raised and propert5z tax, water tax, electricit5r bil1s etc., are r... - :]' \ 30 AKSJ & I'NA,J tt.P )r.).1936, af )009 being paid, therefore, possession of respond'ents cal be traced to 1942. 41 . It is the specific case of the respondents that the Government was never in possession of "!he application schedule property nor claimed the lands within the period of limitation. It is reievant to refer to the observation of the Special Court which reads as hereunder:- .of the respondents utho are *The gouernment issued notice under Section 7 of Lands EncroohmentActinlgg2totherespondent.Nostepshaue been taken to euict the uenfo.rs in occupation of the laLncl since a long time pnor to 1 992 ' Hauing satisfted that Abdut Samad uas in possession of the fand since 7352 Falsi' and sold the tand and subsecluentlg tuo sale transactions took ploce' the respondents purchosed the land Hence' euert if title of Abdut Samad is defectiue' theg can claim title btl aduerse possession. ""

42. The Special Court' by referring to oral and documentary evidence Placed on record bY both the pa-rties, categorically held that respondents have perfected their title by way of adverse possession on the principle of 'tacking'. The applicalt-State except filing the revenue records,TSLRsandpahani,hasnotplacedanymaterial ( 3l AKS,J & I,NI..) W?. No-19369 of 2009 evidencing its possession over the subject land and on the other hand, the respondents have placed voluminous documents in proof their continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than 3O years. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground or reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Special Court with regard to title of respondents by way of adverse possession.

43. Let us now examine the aspect whether the respondents can be termed as 'land grabbers,. It is relevant to refer tq the flef!$lion .of Land Grabber defined under Section 2 (e) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 1982, which reads as under: "S.2 1ey. "land grabbing" means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or alry other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lardul entitiement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such 1alds, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorised structures thereon for sa-le or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and -\ 32 AKS.I & LNA,I tY)' Na t9t69 of 200t occupation, of unauthorised structures; and the term "to grab 1and" shall be construed accordingly;"

44. It is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v' Government of A.P.11, wherein the Hon"ble Apex Court held that a person can be ca1led a1and grabber' for the acts' such as (a) unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily' snatched forcibly' violentlyorunscrupulouslyoccupiesanyland'(b)without any 1awfu1 entitiement, (c) with a view to illegally taking ub;eauent action with possession of such lar-rds and respect to subject iand' Therefot"' ftottt the ratio laid down by the Hon'b1e Apex Court, it is clear that a person can be called as 'land grabber' when he/ she occupies any land forcibly, illegally, violently without any legal entitlement' ,

45. In the present case, the respondents are ln occupation of application schedule propertv based on the registered. sale d.eeds' The respondents have obtained '\'1ir" es and have permission for construction,'rdiSed structur been paying property tax, water and electricity bills' etc and their title can be traced to 7942' ''- 't lzoozl z;Bcc zst 33 AKSJ & LNA,J wP. No-19J69 oJ 2009

46. It is relevart to refer to certain observations of the Special Court in the impugned judgment, which are extracted as hereunder: "The respondents are rn possessjon as purchasers from the persons uho made a lagout and the layout u.tas approued bg the Municipal Corporation. Hence, it cannot be said. that theg are in unlaufuL possessjon. More ouer since l3S2 Fasli the applicant u)os not in possesslon of the land.. The respondents are in possession under bona ftd.e claim of ight title to the property. There is no act of tand grabbing on the part of the respond_ents." 47 As qer sgctign 2 (e) of the Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, a person is said to be a ,land grabber,, when he/she occupies any lald forcibly, illegaliy, violently without any legal entitlement. In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish that occupation of application schedule lands by the respondents comes within ambit/dehnition of lald grabbing. It is a-rso appropriate to refer to observation of Special Court that the claim of respondents with regard to right and title;is bona fide and that they are in occupation of application schedule property based on the registered sale deeds and that there is no act of lald grabbing on the part ol respondents. t:. 34 .,r,(sl..I & LN7 / lY P lta 19t6, ol2a0,

48. The Special Court on due appreciation of orai ald d.ocumentary evidence placed on record has categorically observed that the respondents have acquired title over the application schedule properties by way of adverse possession by applf ing principle of tacking and further observed that the respondents have been in open' continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than 30 years. Further, the respondents are in possession of the appiication schedule property on the strength of the registeret', sa19, degd-s an$,tfr91.ef91e, they cannot be termed as land grabbers' in terms of Section 2 (e) of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. Further, the judgment passed by the Special Court in LGC Nos'72 of i991 and 9 of 2O00 was set aside by the erstwhile High Cor-rrt of A'P' in W.P.No.2788B of 1995 and 9401 of 2003, respectiveiy' and the appeals preferred by the State Government before the Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed/ closed and therefore' the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A'P" in W.P.Nos.27888 of 1995 and 9401 of 2003 are binding on the petitioner-State Government. Hence, in vieu' of the afgdaid facts ald circumstances of the case ald also in ! 35 )IKS,J & LNA,J WP No 19369 o12009 view of the above settled legal position, the respondents cannot be termed as ,land grabbers,.

19. Insofar as the scope ald power of High Court under Articles 226 or 222 of the Constitution of India, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Honble Apex Court in State of A.P., v. prameela Modi and othersr2, wherein it is held that High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence.

50. Further, the Hon,ble Apex Court in State of A.p. v. P.V.Hanumantha Rao and anotherl3, held that against the decision of the Special Court, no appeal is provided and only remedy of the aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under Articies 226 or 222 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that remedy of writ petition available in the High Court is not against the decision of the Subordinate Court, Tribuna,l or Authority, but it is against the decision-making process. It is also held that right of the High Court to interfere with orders of '' lzooo; t3 scc t+z '' 1zoo31 to scc tzto 36 /KS,] & I'NA J WP \o trl69 o12009 Subordinate Courts and Tribunals is llmited' where manifest ald apparent on the face of (i) there is an error the Proceedings, such as, when it rs based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of 1aw and (ii) grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned therebY 51 In Y.Amruthabai v' Special Court under A'P'land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act1a, a Division Bench of this Court, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A'P' v P.V.Hanumantha Rao and anotherrs, held as under: "36. It is also elrdent from the record' that the Special Court neither refused to admit admissible and material evidencenorhaderroneouslyadmittedinzrdmissrble evidence, which has influenced thc impugned {indings Further, there is nothrng on record to sullstantlate that Special Court has acted in flagra'nt drsregard of the rules of procedure or violated the principles of natural justice. There rs no manifest error apparent on the face of proceedings to issue a writ of certicirari as prayed for. Further' the Special Court neither acted without jurisdiction nor acted in excess of it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it There are no circumstalces to interfere with the impugned L1 2o226dc orline TS 1801 " ruoo3) 10 scc t21 V ti t I L1KS.J & I.NA,J W P- No 19369.f20a9 judgment by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India..."

52. Thus, from the ratio laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that the scope and power of High Court under Article s 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited ald the High Court pannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaiuation of evidence. The High Court can interfere with the decision of the Special Court only where there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and where it resulted in gross injustice or it occasioned in gross failure ofjustice. Conclusion:

53. In the iight of above discussion and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Court warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ petition is devoid of anv merit and is liable to be dismissed. \ ( I I I l I i 39 /1{S J & LN/I J tt/.P Na 19i69 of2009

54. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

55. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. , //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.AMMAJI GISTRAR OFFICER ,i?=[']T ! $=.r'o* To, 1 z J One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.RAJAM RAJU, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 Two CD Copies BS LS a- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 F\ { J I /"i rl- ri. i ,4' i t, 'j1x .. '_;- ' ' tr\'' L, 3O APR t75 2 t" t D,

3.5 gO ,.. ORDER WP.No.19369 of 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS