HIGH COURT FOR THE v. 1. C.Balakrishna

4. Smt.Radha, Wo,Mohanlal plot No.34 Balaji Colony, Kharkana, Secunderabad

5. Smt.K.S Latha, Wo N padmanabhan Rto.14_7t13, Chanatynapuri Colony,Safilguda Malkajgiri,Secunderabad

6. K.S Raji Kump.r, S/o.K.C.N.phani Kumar, R/o.H.No.5_111, l-atchanagar, Hyderabad ):;'i"?SQuarter H1'derbad- '!#fffi ,iill;,T'TBI;":#'?*ffi "Yi$i';*:8fi R A.Muralidhat' {i o A' }'I Krishna' R/o H No 1-11-163'Begurrpet sattasopa" *':I *" t''Devet€ , *: R.",:fl#,x?x,?l5;lli,'x.T;s/ov 500016 Muraridhar *'" r ,,, ' " : n^o I 11 153 si anrral ;*'E"y'r*EHi,il!}l;Si?A ,, B1,I;Up3;;ru,tlly;ymaluffi3ifl" , t,P;Y,1,f,Il:tf.il Srffilram ,l . x,J,,a# rs; l 3 ;:"Y'5ri!:l:r?"drti".* R/o H No'r-3-67' Rajamucariar *o 1 - 1 1 - 1 83/ 1 sh a mr ar ,*E3l,i"[l[,?lAf Sn,Z*l,li#'^llA$ilfiffi iffi "Hl?3'l;i#"'i'5llli'" A.P 'f"*f:fl:mX[;1nF'3PJ'l'Xi'o3i'."it]E*' '' Riiifi :?:,Hi i;',li aT€lHlL?,lif 16.smt P. Padrn:iia- W/o P'V Kames*tlg R''"'-3sr?# lr"#;i"l'.?*%lTH:t' '" ilo'Crorrlo 3' DinakarNagar' WestVenkata 17.Smt P. Snoba Flani, Wo Late P Kalidas'.Aged about 62 /ears' Occ House wife, R/o n r'r', r-r'zi)6i Vib"ic"rti;v'-N'dh"'m' uppar F:R District' Telangana (Respondent rJr 14 to '16 are impleaded' vide I A No 'l of 20 l6 (W P MP' ii;"iiliji,r ,- iu, ,'^'3,43$5i6#U";il"Jryft{:t;l';r,6iNo 2 or 2023 aS per Crlur' C)rder datecl 'lU-'lu-zuz+ rrr vv r- .....RESPONDENTS PetitionUnlcrArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiapr;ryingthatinthe circumstancesstirl':)(lintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHiglrCourtmaybe pleased to set- rsirde the judgment and Decree dl25-10'2007 made in LGC.No.72l20r12 E,assed by the Special Court under A P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act H\derabad is contrary to the procedure p -es;ented under the procedure of Civrl l.l is;pute particularly the Respondent/Applica rts, failed to provide their case by reaclrrq proper documentary evidence in as mt.ch a procedure prescribed un(l(:, Civil dispute petitioners pa (icularly the Respondents/ADpl c,,rtrons failed to prove their tifle andlor possrl51:,1s6 and /or their alleged dispossessrc,n and as such the order assailed is violatile ,rf the provisions of Special Court under A. p Land Grabbing(prohibition ) Act Articte M,19(g) and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and the same is liable to be quash and set-aside and to grant such other relief or the reliefs as the petitioner is found entifled to in Iaw by issuance of a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ of certiorari or any other ap propriate writ or order r.A.NO: 2oF 2008(wP MP. N O: 4469 oF 2008) 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the judgement and decree dt.25- 10-2007 passed by the speciar court under A.p.Lands Grabbing(prof ibition) Act pending disposal of the writ petition. counser for the petitioners/Respondents in LGC : sRl .H.RAMESH BABU 3;1ffi1". the Respondenr Nos.l to 4, &7,10 to ,r3 : SRt S.SR|NIvASA Counsel for the Respond s u e eA RAb- ;d ;;uiiTtHtfi,fi ]lfi?lffi [i3 [,lil, t;Xl^il...riff_X"ipondent Nos.14 to 1GlAppticants in LGC : sRr GADE LG c : S Rr c HAL LA Counsel for the Respondent No.17 : SRt V.S.R.M.V.PRASAD SANAKA The Court made the foltowing ORDER rHE Ho IttLE sRI',uillt'r' vINoD KUM'AR THE H()n,,BLE sMT. JUSTICE P'SREE sUDrL\ TP ET TTTON No. 3438 of 2008 r1, RT ORDER: ll'it it t't hle Sri 'lusticc T'l/inod Kumar) This \\ I I Petition is filed aggrieved by the dec e€ and jud grnen t dat,:1 25-10-2007 passed by the Special (lourt constitutetl rr rller the A'P Land Grabbing (ProhibitioLrr l"ct at Hyclelabarl (1or r;hor1 'the Special Court') in Land Grabbing Case vide LGC N o -.' o12002' pet li,r liers hcrein are resPondents in tlte iLfo resaid

2. Thc LGC.

3. The re:1ro'rdent herein have fited the subject ]-anci r-irrLbbi.g Case (t-'Gt-' tLrrder Section 8(l) of ttre A'P' t'ancl lirrbbing (Prohibirior r '\ct, 1982 (for short 'the Act') initiallv rrgainst petitiorle'r \lc ; I and 2 lrerein as respondents thereill' l'ur 'ng the pendencl rl LGC' on the death of 1't petitiole r herein' petition<:r lrls 3 to 5 herein were brought on record as Legal Representa li ' cs of the deceased l't petitioner herein' 4 . Hear.c ie llrned counsel lor the petitioners/,respo nd :rrts in LGC, Sri ,.'l ,rila Subba Rao' learned Counsel for Sri Vl'Radha 2 Krishna, Iearned counsel for 9/applicants in LGC and Sri Gad counsel appearing I6lapplicants in LGC. respondent Nos.5 6 8 and e Ver*ateswara Rao, Iearned on behalf of respondent Nos. 14 fo petitioners/respondents,

5. On behalf of th it is contended that the speciar c"rrt di," I not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act while raking cognizance of the application filed by the respondents/applicants to declare the petitioners/respondents land grabbers having grabbed land admeasuring 30i0 sq. yards out of Ac.l.gl cents covered by plot Nos.l to 32 in Sy.No.53 part of Ko.,vkur village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disrrict (now Medchal_Malkajgiri District). respondents/applicants,

6. The petitioners/respondents contend that, the Special Court while taking cognizance of the application filed by though had cailed for report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, ditj not consider the aforesaid report while deciding the application filed by the respondenrs/ applicants, and if only the aforesaid report was considered, it would be clear that the responderts courd not have been decrared as land grabbers under the provisions of the Act. 3 It ir; tlL- fr-rtther case of rcspondents that' the Speciz'l Coutt l. having r.al[':c ]or a report, ought to have taken into corrsirleration tl-re aforesa i<l rcport, and non-consideration of the tep'lrt' has resultei irr rr- lscarriage ofjustice

8.Itisal..lthefurthercaseofpetitioners/respondentstlrat,as per Ru'e (, .,r'11-t" Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (I'rolibition) Rules, t9il8 (lor shorl'the Rules'), thcugh' it is for tre Courtto catl fo- iI t'\)l)or1 or not' but once report is called' the same is required .,r be considered as held by a Full Rercll of the erstu,hilelliqhCourtofAndhraPradeshinMohd'SttddiqAli Khan ancl trnolher etc Vs. Shahsun Finance Ltd, and another''

9. Ir is rlso the case of petitioners/respondent:i that, since the 1't pctitior:,. r,'respondent had denied the execution oI a.greement of sale, or r,l reivillg paft consideration thereunder., the llpplicants did not d.s,.'lrarge the initial burden cast on them as per Section 10 oi th: r\ct, before the burden getting shifted cn to the responder r1s

10. The p,.,titioners/respondents also contended tha . t, re issues have not bc,:,n properly framed by the Special Court 'zoo51z1 +Ll ,, : 4 I I . The petitioners/respondents further contended that since, the respondents/applicants except claiming to have obtained layout from the Gram panchayat, did not place on record any material to show that such a layout was obtained, and on the other hand, the information obtained by the 2nd petitioner/ respondent subsequently under the Right to Information Act, 2005 shows that the said Gram panchayat was not in existence on the date when the respondents/applicants claim to have obtained layout sanction, as by then the subject area has become Grade-l Il Municipality.

12. The petitioners/respondents would further contend that their land is an agricultural land wherein agricultural operations are being undertaken and as such, the respondents/applicants claim to be in possession or the petitioners/respondents having removed the stones with a tractor for the respondents/applicants to claim that the respondents/applicants having grabbed their cannot Iand.

13. It is also the case of the petitioners/respondents that, the land in Sy.Nos.52 to 54 of Kowkur village belongs I 't petitioner/respondent and is a joint family property of him and hrs lamtly members. I 5 ' 3spon

14. Petitior.rer '] dents further contended that' though the said land uas Ccclared as Ceiling Surplus land undel the U;ban Land (Ceiiintr i'nd Regulation) Act' 1976' since the said determinatioir r rlr'ler the said Act' on a challenge' rvas set a side' 'the responrlenl' applicants cannot ciaitn the subject land hirving vested with tr<' applicants for the Special Court to dec[ar': the petitioners/re';t-' rndents as land grabbers oi the sai'l e <te nt of land.

15. Per 'ontt'tt learned counsel for respondents/applicant Nos'5 and 6 uotLlcl (rontend that the petitioners/respondents 'rerein excePt denvit r1t of executton of unregistered sale de':d bY claiming it a'fabricated' did not take any steps :o prove the lactum ol a'l'- -red labrication' 16. On b':hrll of the respondents/applicants' it is further conteucled ' hat petitioners/respondents did nrlt file any support oI their docume:rts lr':fore the Special Court contention ,r ong with the counter-affidavit as t() the subject properlr' beirg joint famity property and that ther: ''vas no agreemcnt et'tered into by them with the responden[s/al;plicants ' 6 petitioners/respondents

17. on beharf of the respondents/applicants, it is contended that though a report was called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer, the said report cannot be taken as a conclusive proof in favour of as none of the authorities who have given 'the aforesaid report have been examined; and that since the petitioners/respondents are not disputing the claim of the respondents/applicants to be the owners of land, having entered into an agreement of sale for part of land, the report fuinished by the authorities only confirms position as to who is the owner of the subject land is and not the transactions which the petitioners/ respondents had entered into with the respondents/applicants underthe agreement ofsale dated Ol_ll_19g2.

18. On behalfofthe respondents/applicants, it is also contended that not only the I't petitioner/respondent entered into agreement of sale marked as Ex.A- I before the Special Court, the I't petitioner/respondent also executed a registered power of Attorney (poA) in favour of the respondent/applicant No.l dated 0l-12-1993 and respondent/appricant No.r, on the basis ofthe aforesaid PoA, had executed registered sale deeds in favour of other applicants marked as Exs.A-3 to A_9 spread over the period between 1994-2000. 7

19. On lrr:ralf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contencled tiat since, the 1'' petitioner/respondent had :rccepted the s.ale ,lecds executed by the PoA holCer of 1't petitio ncr''r'espondent, without taking any steps to pet the PoA or the sali: ,l:eds cancelled, the petitioners/respc,nrle ntr.; cannot wriggle out .,.'their obligation under the aforesaid r;a1e deeds.

20. Orr bt:hrr f of the respondents/applicants, it is rrlso crrntended that the 1' l.,r:titioner/respondent tltough, had filerl his t.,vidence affidavit as I{.W.1, did not subject himself 1br be in1,; cross- .a36!nr:d l--, '. the respondents/applicants before t.hr: .{r lvocate- Cornrnissjon:' appointed by the Special Court resulting his evidence b:i rg eschewed, and thus, has failed to prov,: his clairn of non-r'ec r:'ipL of consideration undet agreemerlt o1' sale or cxecution oi FoA being fabricated. 21 . ()n belalf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contended tl rt in terms of Section 10 of the Act, the ap plicants having disc.harged the initial burden cast on them t,y pro.,,ing the executicn oi tLgreement of sale, execution of PoA in fa your of 1't respondt:r',1.r applicant and the subsequent sale der:ds lor and on behalf of 1'' petitioner/respondent, the burden srands shifted to the I st pet Lt; rner/respondent to prove that he is not a land grabber, which the Speciar court on due consideration of the aforesaid material had held against the I'r petitioner/respondent.

22. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contended that though the I'r petitioner/respondent claims to be owner of land in Sy.No.52 to 54, by virtue of the proceedings under the ULC Act, the entire land in Sy.No.53 was held to be ceiling surplus land and possession being taken over by the concerned authorities in the year 2005, and thus, the claim of the ls petitioner/respondent was rightly rejected by the special Court apart from self-contradictory.

23. On behalf of the respondents/applicants it is further contended that the 2nd respondent except claiming that the l.r petitioner/respondent was an illiterate person and could only affx his thumb impression, did not bring on record any document or adduce any eviclence to substantiate the aforesaid claim.

24. It is also contended that the 2nd petitioner/respondent did not file separate written statement, though was represented by a separatc counsel, and had only relied upon the writtcn statement/counter filed by the I't petitioner/respondent, vrho had 9 failed to i, f I'cr himself tbr being cross-exanrinc d by the responclenr s, rpplicants. 25, Tlrusr. tlr: respondents/applicants seek for disnrrssi:1 of the prcsent \\i it l'etition

26. The ltcrcsaid argumcnts advanced by the learn:d counsel for responc1,.,nt Nos.5 and 6/applicants were also ado rted by learned collr: s,rl for respondcnt Nos. 14 to 16 herein

27. Wc lLiL,,,r taken note of respective contentions urgt:d CONSIDER,\ TION BY THE COURT

28. Be lor,: r,lverting to the respective contentions, it s to be noted that th:. scope of a Writ Petition filed assailir:g tlre lr.der of the Special I ourt is limited i.e. as to examine rvhether the Special Cou' had excluded the material that was placeC t'efore it or consi,Cer:d rrelevant material. (See: State of A.It l/. Prameelo Morli2 tnrl Stote of A.P V P.V. Hanumantha Rao & on:other'.)

29. Th.: rt r,1 ,ondents/applicants in support of their case. before the Sper.ial ('curl marked EX.A-I to A-9 while thr: respondents did not <:hoos,: [o mark anv documents. t (zooe) t: :,cc :.r., '1200:1 ro i cc r.::. 10 respondents/applicants,

30. Though, on behalf of the petitioners/respondents, it is contended that the special court having not followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 6 ofthe Rules and based its findings entirely on the documents marked by the a perusal of the order would show that though had filed his chiefaffidavit, did not make himself available for being cross_examined bv the respondents/appl icants, even though the Special Court had appointed an Advocate_Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose, the l'tpetitioner/respondent, resulting his evidence being eschewed

31. Insofar as R.W.2 is concemed, though the said 2nd petitioner/respondent had filed his chiefaffidavit and offered himself for cross-examination, no documents were marked by him in his chief-examination for this Court to hold that the Special court having failed to consider the relevant documents while passing its order It is also to be noted that while the respondents/applicants were examined as P.Ws.l and, 2 and, cross-examined on behalf of petitioners/respondents, the respondents/applicants were not confronted with any documents to disprove claim made by them as to the execution of 11, unregisterco aIlr' ('rnent of sale, PoA alC the subsecuert :;ale deeds exectitei l-'y the PoA holder in the name of R'W' t' 32. The SPecLrr ' Court by considering Application sullnri:terl by rPPlicants and the counter avennents ol' the the resPor det 'i:'I respondenls. tL:rrl trarned tire following questlons:- (1) Wh:rh':r the aPPlicants are the owlle rs ol the rpDli .'ation scheduled propeity? (2)Wht i:ei the respondents ale land grabbers'withLn the me al ius of the Act? (3't'i'c'','hat reliefl il. 'Ihc S1r.:c'a1 Court by considering the evidenr:c cf l)'Ws'1 and 2, 11':f 1r \\'ere also cross-examined by tlte pt:tilioners/ respondtrnls. n'rted that their evidence could not be 'liscretlited the petitior t' ' s''respondents have not produced evetl ? s(lrap of paper ir, sLl rf (rt1 of their case' The Special Court also no;ed that though thL: l't petitioner/respondent filed counter arLd also evidenc: a'l-davit, did not submit himself for cross exantination berorc rhe rl c'mrnissioner appointed for his cros!;-exrltinati0n and thus. h i:; i.r.irlence I 34. rfre,ipecr,rr ""r*: who is rhc ,,, ,, *"i,::: eschewed from considerati*n the evide 1ad nored -considerins ,ou, R,W.2 ,houn^, ^ o,t ne harl dis:pttccl 72 the clairn ofthe respondents/applicantsand also the signature of his father on Ex.A_l and A_2, however, did not submit any document in support ofhis oral evidence. The Special Court also noted that though R.W.2 claimed rhanhe entire land in Sy No.53 was declared as surplus land under ULC Act vide proceedings No'G2/l 1l/80 andthe said proceeding having been set aside and remanded the matter to the Special officer for fresh disposal in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Appeal No.206/96, did not submit any documents in support of_his oral evidence to the above effect

35. The Special Court also noted that R.W.2 in his Cross_ examination having stated that his affidavit in chief has been prepared by his brother and his brother has given instructions to his Advocate to prepare evidence affidavit and that during the year 1993 he was posted ar Kazipet, had inferred that R.w.2 has no personal knowledge about execution of documents Exs.A- 1 to A-9 relied upon by the applicants, and herd that the evidence of R.W.2 cannot be relied upon as the same is not helpful to the stand taken by the respondents in their defence.

36. Thc Special Court also noted that after the death of lst petitioner/respondent apart from RW2 who is already on 13 record, lho,r!rf petitionersi respondent Nos'3 to 6 rver': im:leaded as legal ]r,:' s of l" petitioner/respondent' tl.re said impleaded lcgal heirs cl.I not contcst the case and lemained ex parte

37. The lirrecial Couft thereafter considering the dor:uments malked ,r rr hchalf of the respondents/applicants and also considerin: lre statutory report dated 09-01-2003 ol' the Mandal Rcvenuc Ot lccr concluded that the respondents/appl carts have successlirl[,, established their title and possession to the application .,r:hedule propcrty to all extent of 3010 s([uare yards from and l t ol an extent of Ac.28.00 in Sy.No. 5ll of Kowkur village ac.1 - rled under Exs.A-1 to A-9 and dischargerl the initial burden as :r'rrtemplated Under Section 10 of the Act

38. 'l'he t.,pccial Court notir.rg as above, held rl.rat the responden.:; p,etitioners herein by adducing any erccepti;ble oral or docrrrnerran,evidence have miserably failed to esrablish that they ar',,: rlol lirnd grabbers to claim the subject land. lhe Special Court bv rro ing as above, held that the respondentsr per.itioners hcrein hrr.,,: unauthorizedly and forcibly entere,l irrto the applicar on sr:iredule land by removing the boundary stones of the plors pt rcl,ased by the applicants/respondents the entirr: ,rnrl rvith tractor and as such, are in illegal zrnd un by plo,rghing I I I l , i 1,4 grabbers, under lawful possession of the application schedule land and thereby they would come within the meaning of ,land section 2(d) and2(e) ofthe Act and declared them to be so. 39. The said finding of the fact recorded by the Special Court particularly with regard to the petitioners/respondents substantialed their claim more particularly in relation to the claim of land covered by ULC proceedings not being proved, this Court is of the view that the petitioners/respondents have any valid title to be rn possession of the application schedule land being claimed by the respondents/applicants havirg purchased the same not having under Exs.A-l to A_9 which do not remained uncontroverted.

40. Insofar ass the contention of the petitioners/respondents by placing reliance in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Courr in Mohtt. Siddiq Alikhan ond anothcr(supra) to contend thar thc Special Court having called for report from MRO as per Rr-rle 6 of Rules, the said decision having been overnrled by the Apex Court -in Pesara pushpomala Reddy v. G. Veeraswarty md olhersa,whcrein it rvas held tllat the object cf Rule 6 of the Rules o Cutt) ,i scc:te i i I t I 15 is ro assisr the Spc.irl -rribunar or the Special court to arri'''e a1 a mtl rl the verY object can be achieved ri'it l-rc'ul correct decrst ln referring the lppli''rrtion to MRO' there is no compeilinll drity to refer the aplrlicat on to MRO under Rule 6 of the lUles' no reliance can b': l' lrrc cd on the said decision Further' th': '\l lex Coufi havin3 hc'J that relerring to MRO under Rule 6' :rf the Rules is not nlsrrt llit()ll" non-consideration of the repofi fru"ri:'hed cannot be pr.rt i't iriuher pedestal' Thus' the submission o1 the petitionels''r'e:'1 rc rclcuts on this ground is without atly s'rllstlrnce and is liabl.: tr l': rejected'

41. Furthr.'r'. 'lr,' petitioners/respondents having faiied to ['rove their claim o" t!' : land in Sy.No 53 being declared as tron-sutplus land under [. ] ( - proceedings, this Court cannot l.rc'ld .hat the Special Cour' lt rrl tailed to consider the relevant mat-'riai or excluded the rtaterial that has been placed befcr'r it or considereci ile levant r.naterial rvhile holdil;1 the petitioners /r'errnr I lclenls to be land grabbers. 42 Iror rlre rrli ,r'csaid reasons, this Court is of the vierv th,tt fhe judginent <,lllr,: .,ipecial Court does not suffer from any en.(]f fbl. being inter br.c t1 b1 t.iris Court in exercise of jurisdictior_. Aflicle 226 ol t,., constitution of India. ulrder. 16 .+J. Accordingly, the Writ petition is devoid of dismissed. No costs ment and it is

44. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. Y t To //TRUE COPYII SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTfrAR V SECTION OFFICER ] One CC to SRt CH RAMESH BABU, Advocate (OpUC) ? 9n" CC to SRt GADE VEN]GIF.qWARA Ri'o,'iaro"itu topucl - ., 3 One CC to SRr s.sRrNtv.ASA SIARMA, Adr;"d [oe,-c1- 4. One CC to SRI V.S.R.M.V.PRASAD SANAKA, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI M.RADHA KR|SHNA, Advocate (OpUCi '- 6. Two CD Copies SA BS ,,'- \l -a-:- ,1Nia CF .:'. ..-', //.,'. ,t \\ /r 'd -I _l r ', ) . ::::.::. 't._ --(.^ i., 'lr lt J .]. ... : ,/ t/ HIGH GOURT' DATED:2 2t0412025 ORDER WP.No.343l] of 2008 g /5 / { DISM'SSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.