High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the judgment and decree order dt. 11.11.2014 passed in LGC No. 6 of 2011 on the file of Special Court under A P. Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, '1982 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing ate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in.the nature of writ of l\tlandamus. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP. N O:3333 OF 2015) 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 direct the respondents herein not to dis-possess the Petitioners herein from their respective plots situated in Gandamguda, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District pursuant to the proceedings dt. 3.1 .2015 issued by the Deputy Collector cum Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District in L.R. no. D116222O14 and also judgment and decree dt. 11.1'1 .20'14 passed in L.G.C. 6 of 2011 on the file Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition), Act, 1982 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT WRIT PETITION NO:6539 OF 2015 Between:

1. G. Nageshwar Rao S/o Krishna Murthy, R/o H.No. 1-35 and Plot No. 153, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Colony, Peermcheruvu, Rajendranagar Mandal R.R. District

2. Smt. M. Dasthamma Wo Chandappa, R/o SC No 3406, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Colony, Peermcheruvu, Rajendranagar Mandal R.R. District

3. Smt. [Vl. Rama Wo Raghavulu, R/o Plot No. 231 , Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Colony, Peermcheruvu, Rajendranagar Mandal R.R. Districi - ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 I The State of Telengana rep by, Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapul, Hyderabad .-- 3

3. The Deputy collector cum Tahsildar, Raiendranagar Mandal, R.R. District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the notice dt. 2.2.2015 in proceedings No. D1162212O14 issued by the 3RD Respondent herein in so far as the Petitioners herein are concerned in respect of their respective plots plot No. 1 53/P bearing house No. 1-35-1 53 admeasuring 200 Sy, Yards situated in Sy. No. 35, plot No. 265 in Sy. No. 33 and 34 admeasuring 60 Sq. yards and plot No. 231 in Sy. No, 33 and 34 of Gandamguda village admeasuring about 60 Sq. yards under Peerancheruvu, Rajendranagar Mandal, R. R. District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against principles of natural justice by issuing appropriate writ or order more particularly in the nature of writ of mand amus l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 8676 OF 2015) Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the plot No. 153/P bearing house No. 1-35- 153 admeasuring 200 Sy. Yards situated in Sy. No. 35, plot No. 265 in Sy. No. 33 and 34 admeasuring 60 Sq. yards and plot No. 231 in Sy. No. 33 and 34 of Gandamguda village admeasuring about 60 Sq. yards under Peerancheruvu, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER FE 1 THE HON'BLE SRI,ruSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE ST]DHA WRIT PETITION Nos. 2490 and 6539 of 2015 COMMON ORDER (Per llon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod iil.mar) Since, the issues involved in these both these Writ Petitions are onc and the same and they are being disposed of by this Conrrron Ordcr:.

2. The petitioner Nos.l b 5 in W.P. No.2490 of 2015 are the respondents in the underlying L.G.C, and are aggrieved by the order of the Special Court constituted under the A.p. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short 'the Act') ar Hyderabad, dated I I .l I .20 L4 in LGC No.06 of 201 L

3. W.P. No.6539 o12015 is filed by the petitioners who are third parties to the underlying L.G.C, challenging thc notice dated

02.02.2015 isstred in the underlying L.G.C proceedings by Depury Collector, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy district. 4. The respondcnt Nos. I and 2 herein have filcd application undcr Section 8( 1) of the Ac[ betbre the Special Courl to declare the petitioner Nos.l to 5 hercin (respondent Nos. I to 5 therein) as z land grabbers in respect of plot No. 10, ll, 12,23 and 24 to an extent of 1072 Sq yds in Sy No.66 of Bandlaguda Jagir village, Raj endranagar Mandal, Rangareddy disrricr.

5. The petitioner Nos. I to 5 claim that the peririoner No.3 herein was allotted plot No. 276 of Gandhamguda Weaker Sections Colony, Pirancheruvu, Rajendranagar Mandal by the then Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, and house sites pattas was also allotted in her favour. Further, the plot Nos. 217, 264 and276 of Gandhamguda Weaker Sections Society were allotted to one Smt. Chandrakala and K. Syamalamma; that the otl-rer petitioners herein have entered into agreements of sale and constructed houses and they continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said plots by obtaining electricity and nala connections.

6. It is contended that, the originat allotment in respect of the above referred persons is not in dispute. Further, the said plot Nos. 276 is situated in Sy No.33 and 34 of Gandarnguda village but not in Sy No.66 of Bandlaguda Jagir vitlage.

7. It is further contended that, the Deputy Collector, Rajendranagar vide report dated 06.04.20I I found that the subject 3 property is not situated in Sy. No. 66 of Bandlaguda Jagir village and it is situated in Sy. No.6ti of Bandlaguda Jagir viltage

8. However, the Special courlt vide its orders passed in l.A. No. 860 of 2012 appointed the Assistant Director, Survey of land Records, R.R. District as comrnissioner to demarcate the subject propefty wherein his report stated that the plot Nos. 10, ll,, 12,23 and 24 are situated in Sy. No.66 of Bandlaguda .lagir village Further contend that, the Special court has no jur.isdiction to enLertain thc underlying L G.C as respondents herein has not satistied the definition under. Secrion 2 (d) and Section 2 (e) of the Act

9. The petitioners herein also contend in respect of survey conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey of land Records, that, the survey conductcd is not in accordance with basic principles of survey which l'ailed to see if there is any over lapping of the land in Sy. No. 33 and 34.

10. It is contended by the writ petitioners in W.p. No.6539 ol 2015 that, petitionel No.1 herein is the owner and possessor of plot No. 153/P admeasuring 200 Sy. yds situated in Sy No.35 of 4 Gandamguda village purchased vide registered sale deed

02.02.2012, further, his vendor purchased the said plot vide registered sale deed bearing dated 12.03.2007 I l. Further, the petitioner No.2 purchased plot No. 265 in Sy. No. 33 and 34 admeasuring 60 Sq. yds in Gandamguda village under agreement of sale from his vendor who was allotted the said housc site vide dated 10.03.1999 and subsequently the petitioner No.2 constructed a small house and obtained electricity connection and in peaceful possession.

12. It is contended that, husband of the petitioner No.3 purchased plot No. 231 in Sy.No.33 and 34 of Gandamguda village admeasuring about 60 Sq. yds vide agreement of sale dated

19.10.2013 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, in peaceful possession and enjoyment olthe property.

13. It is the case of the writ petitioners in W.P. No.6539 of 2015 that, the respondent No.3 herein issued proceedings dated

02.02.2015 vide ludgment and Decree dated I l.ll.2014 passed in L.G.C No. 6 of 201I directing for handing over possession of plot a 5 Nos. 10 to 12,23 and24 admeasuring 1072 Sq. yards situated in Sy.No.66 of Bandlaguda Jagir and to vacate the respective plots.

14. It is contended that, they are not parties to the LGC No. 6 of 20lt and the JLrdgrnent and Decree dated I1.11.20 l4 passed in the said LGC by the Special Courl is not binding and are not liable to be evicted without foltowing the due process of law.

15. Per contra, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/applicants contend that, Srnt. Qasirn Begum Wo. Mohd. Ibrahim Ali was the original pattadar of Sy.No.66 of Bandlaguda Jagir Viliage, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District wherein in the year 1986 she divided the land into house plots. 16. 'lhe respondent No. I herein/applicant No.l purchased plot Nos. 10, 11,23 and 24 admeasuring 872 Sq.yds in Sy.No.66 vzde registered Salc Deed dared 22.08.1981 from Smt. easim Begum, through her GPA holder Mohd. Akbar, S/o.Mohd. Ibrahim Ati.

17. It is the case of the respondents herein that, the respondent No.1's/applicant's father purchased plot No. l2 adnieasuring 200 Sq.yds in Sy.No.66 vide regisrered sale deed dated 22.0g.1991, who died on 20.12.1991 leaving behind the respondents herein as i 6 his legal heirs. The petitioner Nos. I to 5 herein has grabbed the subject plot Nos.l0 to 12,23 and24 and, thus, have no right or title over the grabbed plots and therefore they are liable for eviction.

18. The respondent Nos. I and 2/applicants contend that, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondents Nos. I to 5 together jointly and severally hatched plan of grabbing the subject land by creating various documents.

19. The Special Court, by considering the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2lapplicants, had framed the following issues: l. Whether the applicants are owner of the application schedule land? Whether the rival title sel up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the dpplicants? Ilhether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? iv. To what relief?

20. In support ofthe aforesaid issues framed by the Special Court, on behalf of the respondent Nos. I and 2/applicants, the Applicant No.2 therein was examined as P.W. I and Exs.A-l to A-10 were marked.

21. On behalf of the respondents therein, respondent Nos. I to 4 were examined as RW-l to RW-4, and Exs.B-l to B-15 were marked. EA+* r,) 7

22. Assistant Director, Survey of land Records, R.R District is examined as CW-l. Exs.C-1 to C-5 were marked. 'fhe Deputy Collector & 'l'ahsildar is examined as CW-2 and marked his reporl as Ex.C-6.

23. The Special Court, by oonsidering the orai evidence let in by the parties and also the documents marked as Exs.A-? to ,{-6, had noted that Snrt. Quasim Begum was the pattadar of land to an extent of Acs.2.21 gts., in Sy.No.66 of Bandlaguda Village, as is evident from the certified true copies of Pahanies (Exs.A-2 to A-6), containing the name olQuasirn Begum as pattadar o1- Sy.No.66.

24. Further the Special Court noted that nothing is elicited from P.W.1 in thc cross-examination disputing the ownership of euasim Begum which fact establishes that Quasim Begurn is the owner of Sy. No.66.

25. The Special Courl in respect of rival title se,t up by the petitioner Nos. I to 5/rcspondents I to 5 observed that, the plot No.217 has been allotted to Chandrakala; plot No.264 has been allotted to Kammari Lakshmamma; plot No.276 has been allotted R-3, K. Shyarnalamma and plot No.2lg has been allotted to 8 Chandrakala and out ofthese five respondents, only 3'd respondent is the original allottee whereas the other respondents, claim to have purchased the plots from the original allottees.

26. It is relevant to note that, the petitioner Nos.l to 5 herein did not place any document evidencing their purchase from the original allottees, and also nothing is elicited in the cross examination of CW-l to discredit Ex.C-2 report and, no elfort has also been made by them to substantiate their claim.

27. The Special Court by considering the report of the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar in regard ro the overlapping of plots in Sy.Nos.33 and, 34 o[ Gandhamguda Village or in Sy.No.66 observed as under: "Accordingly with the help of copy of tippons and village map, I have demarcated the common villuge boundary between nvo villages and lhen after veri.fication measurements from LGC.No.6/201t sketches, I hove demarcated plot No. 10, I 1, t 2, 23 & 24 totatly to an extenl of 1072 sq.yrds., found correctly on spot and it is purely in Sy.No.66 of Bandlaguda Village as per petitioner Sale Deed it is found correctly on spot dnd on spot all (5) five respondents are grabbed on plor No.10, 11, 12 23 & 24 and marked with "RED- PAINT" more over Gandamguda Village Sy.No.33 extent Ac.6-26 gls. recorded as "Kharij Khata, Sy.no.34 extent Ac 9-l I gts "Jagh " and Sy.No.66 Ac.2-21 gts as "Sardarunisa Bee" in Bandiaguda Village." 9

28. Thus, due to the aforesaid reasons the Special Courl held the petitioner Nos. I to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5 as land grabbers and are directed to vacate the schedule plots

29. The Special Court by holding as above, allowed the LGC filed by the respondent Nos. I and2 /applicants.

30. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Petition is fllcd

31. Heard, learred Counsel for the petitioners Sri M.lt.S Srinivas learned counsel Sri MAK Mukeed for the respondent Nos I and 2, leamed Govemment Pleader for Assignment for respondcnt Nos. 3 to 5 and, and perused the record.

32. Though, on behalf of the petitioner Nos. I to ,s/respondents Nos. 1 to 5, an effort was made to re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Special Court, it is to be noted that as per the provisions of the Act, the findings recorded by the Special Courl as to whether the act of land grabbing has taken place and the person against whom the said allegation of land grabbing is rnade is to be 10 declared as land grabber in terms of the Act, is conclusive (See : Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah and anothert).

33. Further, it is settled position of law that while considering the Writ Petition filed against the order of the Special Courl, the Writ Court is only required to consider whether the Special Court had excluded the relevant material and considel'ed ir:relevant material (See: State of A.P. vs. Prameela Motli and orhers2 antl Stile of A.P. Vs. P.V.Hanumanlha Rao (Deatt) Through LRs and anothey').

34. If the law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions is taken into consideration and applied to the facts of the present case, though on behalf of the petitioners No. i to 5/respondent Nos.l to 5 submit that the subject land is house and that it does not fall under the definition of the land grabber under the Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act and it is ro be noted rhat the definition of 'land' under the Act makes it clear that the expression 'land' includes "buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth". In view ofsuch inclusive definition of 'land', grabbing a '1zoro; z scc +or '{zooo; t: scc r+7 ' (2003) t0 scc l2l i-) 11 building attached to the eafth amounts to land grabbing for the purposes of this Act (See: SaJiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussaina).

35. Though the counsel for petitioner Nos. I to 5/respondent Nos I to 5 contend that the alleged act of land grabbing of the subject property in the underlying LGC is not a completed action of grabbing under the Act, horvever, the construction of houses and habitation therein by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5 in the subject property without any lawful entitlement itself constitutes the occupation of the petitioners herein and demonstrates complete activity of grabbing the subject land under the Act

36. It is pertinent to note that, though the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5 claim that there is an overlapping in land in Sy No. 33 and34, however as per the Assistant Director, Surwey and Land records report it is evident as per Sale Deed that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5 grabbed land in plot No. 10, 11, 12 23 & 24. For the said fact nothing was drawn out a lzor r; z scc s+ 12 from the cross examination of CW-l on behalf of the petitioners herein to invalidate the Ex.C-2 report. Thus, by the said reason it can be said that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has grabbed the subject land.

37. It is also pertinent to note that, except petitioner No.3 who is the original allottee who was allotted plot No. 27 6 the other petitioners claim to have purchased the plots from the original allotee but, the petitioners did not place reliance on any document evidencing their purchase from the original allotees such as link documents to establish their claim over the subject land. Wherein the respondents Nos. I and 2/applicants were able to establish by placing evidences in supporl of their claim that subject plots come under the Sy No.66 of Bandlaguda Jagir.

38. This Court in Y. Amruthabsi and Ors. vs. The Spl. Courl and Orss held as under: Further, it is settled law that pqrties to a case must stdnd on their own legs and prove their specilic stand. They cannot rely on weakness or ubsence of defence of the olher side to discharge their burden or onus, .Lt the case may be. When the are claimin litle to the aDDlicatton schedule land, thev res. hdve to prove their title by adducins cosenl afid idence resardinq their lawful owners in over the s bers. The respondents record a smgle scrap of paper showing their lawlul failed to place on title/entitlement ov er lhe property in question, t ebullin4 the evidence let in by the appl icant/State. e and that thev are nol land 'MAMjnLtrc84/2022 13

39. Since, the petitioners in W.p.No.6539 of 2015 has purchased their houses/plots vide registered sale deeds from petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5. At this juncture it is reievant to note that the purchased properties are found to be defective as the petitioner Nos. I to 5/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who are the vendors to the vendees in W? No.6539 of 2015, in the underlying application held as land grabbers under the Act. Thus, it is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses (See.. p. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittat K. patkar6).

40. Since, the Special Court had noted that the petitioner.Nos. I to 5/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has failed to prove that the plots in their occupation come under Sy No. 33 and 34 of Gandamguda village no material is placed to substantiate the claim, at the same time the respondent No. 1 and 2/applicants were able to establish the fact that the subjecr plots fall under Sy No.66 of Bandlaguda village and the petitioners herein as land grabbers.

41. lt cannot be said that the Special court had failed to consider the relevant material to declare the petitioner Nos. 1 to " MANU/Sc/1241l2023 L4 5/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as owner of the schedule land and considered irrelevant material to declare the respondent No. 1 and 2/applicants has got title to the application schedule land while dismissing the LGC frled before it for this Court to disturb the said hndings recorded

42. Thus, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has failed to establish the factum of ownership and overlapping to the subject property by placing concrete evidence and on the other hand, the respondent No. I and 2/applicants having established her title to the subject property, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 and 2/applicants does not have title to the subject property and that the Special Court having erred in appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner Nos. I to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5

43. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner Nos 1 to 5/respondent Nos. I to 5 and petitioners in W.P. No. 6539 of 2015 had failed to make out a case in respect of their contentions, and for the said reason, the WP Nos. 2490 and 6539 of 2015 fails and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD )PE!TY-R-EcJ's-IBAB-1 ', '''r="t,o* oFFlcER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRI IM R S SRINIVAS AdVocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. M A K MUKHEED Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for ASSIGNMENT' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies 4 KKS BS HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 COMMON ORDER ( l;=nt'ir!'+i,: (t; zsraLzw \1 ... ('"i. '.ll'I * t' WP.Nos.2490 and 6539 of 2015 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS