The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY CHEEDELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KTJMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.8298 of 2015 ORDER (per llon'ble Sri Justice Lanmi Narayana Alishelty) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the judgment, dated

04.02.2015, passed in LGC.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the Special Courl under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court')

2. Heard Sri K.Nandaiah, leamed counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sli Srinivas Murthy Cheedella, leamed counsel for respondent No.2-temple.

3. The writ petitioner is respondent No.l and respondent No.2 herein is the applicant-temple, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are respondent Nos.3 and 4, respectively, before the Special Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties wilI be referred to as they are arrayed before the Special Cottrt. I 2 ,,IKS,J&LNA,J wP.No.u298 oI20 t5

4. The t'ar:ts of the case, shorn off unnecessar), details, are that conse(luenl to a ne\vs item published in ,Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily nervspaper datcd 29.03.2006, that an extent ol.Acs.5.00 of land belongrirLg to the applicant_temple was grablted, the Special Courl callecl fbr reporl from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, wlro, in rum, vide letter dated 17.10.2007 stated that there are four enc roachrnents over the propefty of the applicant_temple. The Speciirl Court ride order, dated 0g.11.2007, directed the Comm jssior-er-, [rndorvrnents Department, to file l;orrn No. I and Concise Staterne.nr under rhe A.p. Land GrabbirLg (prohibition) Act, 1982; that consequently, the applicant_temple represented by its Executir c Officer filed application in Fomr_l and Concise Statemcnt, rvherein it is stated that the applicrLnt_temple is an ancient teml>le siruated at Road No. 12, Banjara Flills, Shaikpet \zillage. Hyderabad, ancl is under the administrative control of Endowments I)epartment; that the applicant_temple was given in adoption to Sri Lakshrni Narasimha Swanry Temple. yadagirigutta, by the ()omrlissioner. Endowments Department, r,iCe proceedings date$ 05.02 2002; that the Execurive officer or Sri Lakshmi ) \ ) 3 ,4KS,J&LNA,J WP.No.629E oI20l5 Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta, is managing the affairs of the appticant-temple; that the applicant-temple has vast properties in Shaikpet Village and Maharaj Sri Kishan Prasad granted land admeasuring Acs. 1459-38 guntas in Shaikpet Village to the applicant-temple in Munthakab No.5/56 and as per the said Munthakab, the said land was allotted to the applicant-temple by the then Govemment of Nizam, however, the name of the applicant-temple was not recorded as pattadar in the revenue records; and that most of the lands were encroached by land grabbers

4.1. lt was further case of the applicant-temple that its properties were registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1987, vide proceedings dated 14.12.1993 and an extent of Acs.27-19 guntas with hillock in Sy.No. 129 situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, has been entered in the register; that as per the Town Survey Records, the land admeasuring Acs.24.35 gutnas covered by TS.Nos.4/l, 4/2, 7ll,7lZ and713 is recorded in the name of the applicant-temple. 4 .1ts,J&t.NA,J h'P.L1' 8298 oJ20t5

4.2. It u,a; lurther avemed that respondent No.2-church grabbed an extcnt ot' 7l 7 square yards out of I I .3 l3 square meters covered by TS.No.4 I ol Shaikpet Village in the year 2001, that respondent No.3 had illegalty occupied an exrent ol I 50 square yards in TS.No.4/l ol' Shaikpet Vitlage, without any riglrr and title, and therefore, ther applicant-temple sought to declarr: them as .land grabbers' rrnd fufther, prayed the Special Coun to direct the respondentsr therein to deliver vacant posscssion ol'the same to the applicant-tc mple.

5. A counter on behalf of the writ petitioner.tespondent No.l- church has been filed before the Special Courl denying the avermcnts nade in the Concise Statement, wherein it is contended that writ pctitioner approached the Government lbr allotment of land for c,rnstruction of Church in tl.re year t!r!)3 and pending considcration o1- the said application, they have constructed church; that the llnd in occupation ol the writ petitiorrer-church is not covered br 'IS.Nos.4i I ,711,712 and,7l3; that in the year 1996, some religrous fanatics attacked the church and set fire and that the Cgllector, l{yderabad, conducted enquiry and subnritted a report to ) ,\ ) 5 AKS,J&LNA,J ll/P.No.8298 of 2015 the Government recommending construction of a church; that writ petitioner approached the Collector, through Mandal Revenue Officer, for allotment of an extent of 2000 square meters for construction of church. [t was lurther contended that respondent No.1-church is in possession of 1612 square meters in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village and the same is surrounded by a compound wall.

5.1. It was further avered that Christians of NBT Nagar formed society in the name and style ol 'N.B.T. Nagar Christian a Associatioh' and the said society submitted a representation dated

30.6.1996 to the Government lor allotment of Government waste land for construction of church; and that the Govemment was pleased to altot 170 square yards in Sy'No.403 in TS.No.32, Block- K, Ward No.l2, Shaikpet Vitlage and Mandal, Hyderabad; that as the said land was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the church, the society submitted a representation to the Government for allotment of adjacent vacant land admeasuring 2000 square meters in Sy.No.403; and that they were willing to purchase the same at nominal cost of Rs.200/- per square meter. 6 AKS J& LNA,.I ,11'.,\'o 8298 ol2015

5.2. It u as firrther averred that the Tahsildar, Sraikpet Mandal_ respondent \o.2 submitted a report to the effect that an extent of 1672 squar,.: meters is under encroachment of respondent No.l_ church as allainst the claim of respondent No. I_church to an extent of 2110 squlre metet.s, however, the Govemmenl rlid not take any decision on r he representation of respondent No. I -church. 6. The |ahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal_respondert No.2 filed a counter belirr,: the Special Court stating that as per the .lown Survey lecolds, TS.Nos.4/1, 7/r,712 and713 are rccorded as that of t,e applican r-tempre and that respondent No.l-chruch had illegally grabberl the applicant_temple,s land to an extent of 717 square lards irr TS.'\o.4/1, Block_K, Ward No.l2 co_relatercl to Sy.No.333 of Shaikpct \,rillage.

7. Resp,cndcnl No.3 filed counter before the Special Court stating that he purchased 150 square yards of kLnd from SIum Clertificate Flolder and submitted an application to the Government for regulari::ation of the said land in his occupation, under G.OMs.No.I 66; that the sub_ordinates of the applicant_temple with the help ol l,olice demolished the house constructed by him and 7 AKS,J&LNA,J WP-No.8298 o/ 20 15 finally, he denied the claim ol the applicant-temple that it is the owner of schedule property through Munthakab.

8. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of both the parties in the LGC, the Special Court framed the following issues for determination:- ( 1) I(hether the applicanl-temple is the owner of the applicalion sc hedule pr oPe r tY? (2) Whether lhe rival title set up by the respondents is lrue, valid and binding on the applicant-temple? (3) Whether the applicant-temple is entitled .fo, compensation? (4) Ilhether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) and (e) of the AP Act XII. of 1982? (5) To what relieJ? "

9. Before the Special Court, the applicant, to substantiate its case, has examined its Executive Officer as P.W-l and the then Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, was examined as P'W-2 and got Exs.A-1 to A-5 marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws-1 tq 5 were examined and Exs.B-l to B-25 were marked. The report of the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, along with sketch and TSLR is marked as Ex.X-l and the Memo is marked as Ex.X-2. 8 {KS,,J & LNA, J Wl) i\'a.q2qE of 20ts

10. The Spccial Court, on due appreciatron of oral and documentaly evidence placed on record, came to a conclusion that respondcnr No l-church failed to establish the rival title set up by it and accortri,gry, answered issue Nos.2 and 4 against the respondents therein. IJowever, insofar as issue No. I is concemed, the Chairman of the Special Court has come to a conclusion that Govenrmenr is owner ol the subject property and thus, answered issue No.l in fbvour of the applicant_temple. Insofar as issue No.5 is concerre J, lhe Chairman of the Special Court directed the respondenls thcrein to put the applicant_ternple in vacant possession <,f thc sub.iect property within a period of one month Iiom tl-'e date or-the fudgment, however, the Revenue Member of the Spccial ('ourt directed trre respondents therein t, delivcr vacant possessio'r , f thc sub..iect property to the Govemrnent u,ithin a pcriod of orre month from the date of judgment and thereby, disrnissed thc application of the applicant_temple. 11. Aggricvr:d by the impugned judgment passed by the Special Court declaring the writ petitioner as ,land grabberr,, the present \\'rit Peririon is filed. 9 AKS,J&LNA,J WP.Na 8298 of 2015

12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1- church contended that the Special Court, without there being any evidence on record, has come to an erroneous conclusion that the writ petitioner is a 'land grabber'; and further. the Special Court, without any survey and without considering the report of the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, erroneously concluded that the writ petitioner/respondent No.l-church is in occupation of land in TS.No.4/1.

12.1. Leamed counsel further contended that there is clear conflict in the observations and opinions of the Chairman and the Revenue Member of the Special Court since the Chairman has observed that writ petitioner/ respondent No' I -church is in occupation of land in TS.No.4/1, whereas, the Revenue Member of the Special Court has observed that respondent No.1-church is in occupation of land in TS.No.4/2 to an extent of 717 square yards.

12.2. Learned counsel further contended that the Special Court failed to consider the fact that Munthakab relied upon by the applicant-temple is a manipulated one and in the absence of any J 7 I l0 AK,S,.I & LNA, J tYP .\o 8298 of20l s valid and ploner document, the claim of the applicrant_temple ought to hav,,'been r.ejccted by the Chairman of the Special Court. 13. Per r:ontr.a. lcamed counsel for respondent No.2 herein_ temple contr:nded that the Special Court has taken into considerati,.n the evidence and material placed orr record by both the parties lrnd has come to a categorical conclusion that the writ petitioner/re spondent No. l _church is a ,land grabber,. He further contended rhrrt rhe writ petitioner/respondent No.l-church itself admitted thrrt it is in occupation of Govemmenr. land and it is pursuing li,r allotment of the land to the church with the Govemrnenr and that the Chairman olthe Special Oourt has r.ightly allowed thc application based on the evidence placed o, record bv the applican r.-temp Ie. 13. 1 . Leemed counsel lor respondent No.2_temple further contended tlrat thc Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal in his report hiis categorically stated that the ,,r,rit petitioner/ respondent l.Io. I-chur.ch is in occupation of land belonging to the applicant-telrple and therefore, there are no merirs in the Writ Petition and trre writ petitioner/respondent No. l _church failed to ) 1l ,/.KS,J&LNA,J WP.No.8298 oI20l5 point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Court.

14. Perusal of record reveals that the Special Court has szro motto taken the news item published in 'Andhra Jyothi' Telugu daily newspaper on 29.03.2006 that land admeasuring Acs.5.00 situated at Road No. 12, NBT Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonging to the applicant-temple was grabbed.

15. It was the case of the applicant-temple that land admeasuring Acs.1459-38 guntas in Shaikpet Viltage was granted by Maharaj Sri Kishan Prasad in its favour. Further, as per the Town Survey records, an extent of Acs.25.34 guntas covered by TS.Nos.4/I,4/2, 7ll,712 and713 is recorded in the name of the applicanrtemple and an extent of 717 square yards covered by TS.No.4/1 of Shaikpet village has been grabbed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1- Church and further, an extent of 150 square yards of land was grabbed by respondent No.3. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1-church that it is in occupation of Government land and its association has been pursuing with the Govemment for allotment of the said land for construction of church and thus, I 12 )1K.\,.1 & LNA, J tf P ,\o 3)93 at20t5 respondent No.1-church is not claiming any title rtr. ownership to the subject fi[opefl)'. l]o$,ever, it is their specific contention that the land in tht:il occupation belongs to the Govemme:nt and not that o1' the applicant-temple. It is also evident'fiorn record that respondent No.l-church has not placed any material on record to show that tlie lrrnd in their occupation has been allotted to it and in view of tl-reir admission that they are in occupation of the Governtnent land and have constructed a church itr anticipation of allotment ol'(iorclnrnent land, itsell would establish that they are in occupaliorr ,.rf the subject property without an1 valid right and title.

16. In thc light ol the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered r,iew that the writ petitioner failed to point out any irregulalitv c,r illegality in the impugned judgmenl and therefore, the Writ Petiiion is liable to be dismissed and accorrlingly, the Writ Petition is d isurisscd and the conclusion of the Spr:cial Court that the writ petitiorrer is land grabber is confirmed.

17. At the cost of repetition, it is to be note<l that both the Chairman and the Revenue Member of the Special Court have \ 13 AKSJ&LNA,J WP No E298 oJ20l5 come to conclusion that respondent No. 1-church as well as respondent No.3 are land grabbers to an extent of 717 square yards and 150 square yards, respectively. However, insofar as the title of the applicant-temple is concemed, diverse vigw was taken by the Chairman and Revenue Member of the Special Court. The Chairman of the Special Court, based on Exs.A-2 to A-5, has come to a conclusion that the applicant-temple owns an extent of Acs.47- 19 guntas of land and the name ol the applicant-temple has been shown as enjoyer in Column No.20 of TSLR in respect of TS.No.4/1 and since the said entries have not been challenged' the Chairman has come to a conclusion that the applicant-temple has substantiated its claim of ownership over the subject property' On the other hand, the Revenue Member of the Special Courl has observed that TS.No.4 is sub-divided into TS.Nos.4ll and 412 and by referring to Ex.A-5-TSLR in respect olTS.Nos.4/1, 412,711,712 and 113 and Ex.X-l-report of the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, has come to a conclusion that the subject propefty is situated in TS.No.4/2, 7ll,7l2 and 713 and not in TS.No.4/1. Further, the Revenue Member of the Special Court, by referring to Ex.B- l7 and 1 l t4 AKS,J&LNA,J trP.No.8298 of20ts I8 which rrrc the attested copy of TSLR extra,:t in respect of TS.Nos.4/1 and l2 and attested copy of ROM of all T.S. Nurnbers of Block-K. War.d No. l2 of Shaikpet Village, respectively, has obserr,,cd thlt the subject property is situated in TS.No.4/2, but not in TS.No.4 I and thus, finally concluded that the subject property belongs to llre Govcntment and not to the applicant..temple. 1 8. lt is rrpposite to note Section 7(e) ol. A.p (Prohibition Acr), 1982, which reads as under:- I-and Grabbing '14/her c a casa under this Act is heard b1 d Bench tonsi'titr.q of^ttro ntenhers oncl the members therett/ are dividt d in opinion, tl.te case with their opiniotts .shrtll be laid t'ehre anorher judiciat member or the (lhairman tttd tl,oi ntentltt'r or Clnirmon, as Ihe case mav be, ofter ,suclt l,e,trittg u.s he thinks J)1, .shall deliver his itltinion or rlecisiori or ot.dt'r stnlt.follow the opinion.,, I9. ln the instant case, there is divergent opiniorr on the part of the Chairrna,t and llcvenuc Meurber of the Spr:cial C-ourt with regard to title and orvnership over the subject propertv, therefore, in view of Section 7(c) ol the A.p. Land Gabbing (lrrohibition) Act, 1982, this Cou1.1 1. of lhe considered opinion that this is a fit case to be referrcd to 36e11",- Member for its opinion on the issue as to .\ ) \ l5 AKS,.I & I.NI, J tttP No 8298 ol20t5 whether the subject property has to be delivered to the applicant- temple or to the Govemment. However, in view of abolition of Special Courts under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, all the pending cases have been transferred to the District Courts concemed

20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for its opinion or decision only to the extent of deciding the issue as to I whether the subject property is to be delivered to the applicant- temple or to the Government. The Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, is at liberty to re-hear the case, if it thinks flrt, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, as the matter pertains to the year 2008. 21 . As the conclusion of the Special Court that the writ petitioner/church is'land grabber' ts confirmed, the writ petitioner/church is directed to vacate the subject property within a period of two months and the possession thereof shall be handed over to respondent No.2-temple till the disposal of the case by the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. It is needless to say I I I I t t6 )KS, J <T I,NA, J H'P i'o 8298 of 201 5 :.,,,.$, that such pc,ssession of the subject property by respondent No.2_ temple sirall be subject to the result of the case b,efore the Chief Judge, Citr' (livil Cour.ts, Hyderabad.

22. As a sequcl. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closecl No costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA R DEPUTY REGI DY RAR SECTION FFICER

1. The Reg.istrar. Special Court A.p. Land Grabbinq (prohibition) Act, B. R.K. R Bhavan Tank Buhd Road, Hyderabad.

2. The Executive Officer of Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy Temple, Sri. Lakshmi "' Narsimha Sw,rmv Temnte, Shaikpet Viilage, and lrrt'andaf iViOigrigr.ii6: Nalgonda Districi.

3. The Thasilida', Shaikpet Mandar, state of rerangana, rlyderabad District. 4. One CC to SRt K.NANDAIAH, Advocate. tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to C,P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. One CC to SRt SRtNIVASA MURTHY CHEEDELLA, Acjvocate. tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copres. BSK BS +P 't HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.8298 of 2015 :---. The s.,, ,( o(- O * 0E h.t.., (w c .\ ,a i.' ., r,-l-: .J * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 76 4l h