The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M RAMA KRISHNA The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LI\ND GRABBING APPEAL NO.Os oF 2015 JUDGMENT: (pe-r Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumaia Deui Eada) . This appeal is filed by the petitioner - appellant whose iand grabbing case was dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal (for short "the Tribunal") in LGC No'7 of 1998 vide judgment and decree dated 02'06'2012'

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribuna-1'

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that she is the owner and possessor of house Plot of 3O0 Sq'Yards in survey No.3O 1, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, within the Village of Lashkar Singaram, having purchased the same under registered sale deed clated 19.O6.1984 from Anamani Venkateshwariu and Smt. Anamani Rajamma through their GPA holder Smt'Ghousia Begum and that ever since her purchase, she has been in possession of the said property It is her case that when she wanted to construct a compound wail, she paid the pian fees and vacant land tax to the Municipal Corporation' Warangal in the year 1995 and that sr'*e has also paid development charges to \ 2 AKS,J & ETO,J LGA-No.0S 2016 KUDA, Warangal. During November, 7992 the respondents occupied the land of the petitioner and also occupied the land of one M.G.Gafoor on the eastern side. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Municipal Corporation, warangai. The petitionert case is that the respondents have no title but they were going to undertake the construction of compound wall and that on 22.Og.rcga, the respondents dug trenches and collected stones for basement and by grabbing the land of the petitioner, they raised the constructlon. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to order for demolition of the structures over the suit land and deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the petitioner and also to award costs.

4. The respondents hled counter alleging that the petition is not maintainable and that the provisions of Land Grabbing Act are not applicable. They further denied the execution of sale deed dated lg .06.19g4 . It is their case that the mother of 2nd respondent, Smt.V.G.Rajeshwaramma purchased 3 1 73 Sq.yards on 9n Ajur 1353 Fasli; (19s3 A.D) under a registered sare deed from Sri Syed Muthuja Shareej and since then, the parents of respondent No.2 and all the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the said propert5r. They also averred that the respondents have filed O.p.No.93 of 19g4 which was renumbered ,] l AKS,I & ETD,J LGA No.05 2016 3 as LGC No.lO of 1987 under Land Grabbing Act before the Hon'ble Court against M'A'Gafoor' Venkateshwarlu and others and that it was allowed by the Tribunal and the same operates as resjudicata- He further stated that one Ram Chandar tried to occupy a part of the suit schedule property and that respondent No.2 filed O.S.No,294 of 1991 before Prl'District Munsif Court' Warangal which was decreed' The respondents have further submitted that they paid tax to the municipality and the municipal authorities allotted house No'2/862 and respondent No-2 has raised brick kiln during the period 1952 to 1957 and that father of respondent No'2 died in the year 1957' During the year 1994, Warangal Municipal Corporation started widening the roads and in that process a part of the house bearing No'6-8-155 to 6-8- 158 at Chowrastha, Hanamkonda was demolished and that construction work was commenced and that the petitioner's husband approached the municipality and the municipai authorities opined that the respondents are the owners of the said property. They further submitted that the Iand of the respondents is situated in plot No'5 ald that the respondents do not know whether any survey No'3Ol is in existence and also that the suit schedule property forms part of Abadi and they also submitted that the piot of M A'Gafoor does not fa1l on the eastern 1 '.. \_ 4 AKS,J & ETD,J tGA_No.05 2016 boundary of plot No.5 and that there is no prot No.3 on the northern side. Therefore, the petition racks merits and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above said pleadings; th.e following issues were framed by the Tribunal. schedule property? "1. Whether the petitioner is owner and possessor ot suit 2. Whether the res under Land land grabbers as defined ".Htfl?i".ilt 3. Whether the suit property not covered under O y]:!h:. the petitioners_ purchased the property on 1 9. 06. 84 from rhe. ersrwhi" ";;;;r;"[.ii"n*".r,., ";;Lnou"iu and Rajamma through th.ir ceA Begum? Sy.No.JOt of Lashkar Si"g".u* luji I I i I ' 5 6 7 8 I Whether the L.G.Act? petition is not maintainable under Whether_th€ decree passed in LGC 1O/g7 is operated as Res Judicala and estoppels "ga]""t,1r" o.ii,iJrli 'by and all lhe persons bound it? y^?:,I:r rhe suir properry is situared wirhin the ooundanes mentioned in the petition? Wh_ether the decree passed in O.S.2g4 /gl on the nle ofPrl.Junior Civil Judge, Waralgal l" 6_airg "" if," pettttoner? To what relief-.)"

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got examined herself as PWl and also examined pWs 2 and 3 and got marked Exs.Al to 48. The respondents examined RWs I and 2 ald got marked Exs.Bl and B2O. Exs.Cl and C2 were also marked before the Tribuna!., i .'r t.- .' AKS,J & ETD,J tGA No.05 2016 5 Based on the evidence adduced by both the parties' the suit was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said by the learned Land Reforms Appellate judgment Passed Tribunal, Warangal, the present appeal is frled' 8 Heard the submission of Sri Podila Hari Prasad' learned Sri M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the aPPellant and counsel for the resPondents' 9 . Learned appellant counsel has submitted that the trial Courthasnotappreciatedtheevidenceonproperperspective andthatthepetitionerhasavalidtitleoverthepropert5rasshe has purchased through a sale deed under Ex'A1' which is not considered by the trial Court The counsel has further argued that the evidence of PWs I to 3 coupled with the documents under Exs.A1 to A8, proved her case and that she purchased the suit schedule property with her money given by her parents as Pasupu Kunkuma and that PW2 has given the perfect details aboutboundariesofsuitschedulepropertyasperthesaledeed under Ex.A1 and that the identi[y of property is weli established but the Tribunal has held it otherwise' He further argued that the suit schedule property is a plot in survey No'301 and that it is supported with the report of Tahsildar dated 31 08 2O07 and the name of her vendor's vendor as Exs.A6 to A8 disclose but the learned Tribunal has not Tatishetty RamaswamY f \ 6 AKS,J & ETO,J LGA_No.05 2016 ., considered the same and dismissed her case, therefore, he prayed to set aside the Tribunal,s judgment dated, 02.06.2012 by allowing this appeal. lO. Learned respondents counsel has submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove her case before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition, that the relief claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal does not fall under the Land Grabbing Act and that she is not at all the owner of the suit schedule property arld therefore, has prayed to dismiss the appeal and conhrm the order passed by the Tribunal. IL. Based on the above rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration Whether-the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property? Whether- the respondents gabbed the suit schedule property? lf so, whether the are liable to be declared as iand grabbers? -respondents Yj..ll."^r_j.n. any tnterlerence? Tribunat s judgmenI dared 02.06.2012 need 2 3 To what reliep

12. POINT Nos.t AND 2: a) To prove the case of the petitioner that the respondents grabbed her land, at the flrst instance, she shouid prove that she is the owner of the suit schedule property. To establish the said fact, the petirioner has hled Ex.A1, sale deed dated 19.06. 19g4. / . .'{-;1 ', / , AKS,J & ETD,J LGA-No.05 2016 7 b) A perusal of the said sale deed discloses that she has purchased a house plot of 300 Sq'yards in survey No 3o1' Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, within the village of Lashkar Singaram, on i9 06 1984 from Anamani Venkateshwariu and Smt.Anamani Rajamma through GPA holder Smt'Ghousia Begum. There are no link documents hled by the petitioner to establish that her vendor has a title' Unless' the vendors'tit1e is proved, the petitioner cannot claim that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and that a title has been conveyed through Ex.A1 to her' Exs A6 to A8 are the pahanies for the year 1983-84, 1985-86 and' 1986-87 ' The entries in pahanies do not prove any title. Ex.A2 is the complaint given by the petitioner to the municipality and trx A2(a) is the endorsement made on Ex.A2,whichshowsthatthepetitionerhascomplainedaboutthe construction of house by the respondents' c) A perusai of the evidence of PW1 discloses that she could not speak about the boundaries of the property and that she could not identify the property in the sketch prepared by the surveyor and also that she does not know her vendors Sri A.Venkateshwarlu, Smt A'Rajamma and their GPA holder' Ghousia Begum. It is a'lso elicited through her that she does not know the house bearin g No'2-2-17 11 and its location This is \ \ 8 AKS,J & ETD,J LGA No.05 2016 the house that is located in the suit schedule property as ciaimed by the respondents, and the same is not known to the petitioner. PWl also has stated that she does not know the house bearing No.2-l-186/4, which is located near the suit property, as per the sale deed under Ex.A1 and she is unable to give boundaries of the suit schedule property. Therefore, it can be clearly held that she is unaware of the suit schedule property and its location and that she is not even aware of the structure which is existing in the suit schedule property. d) PW2 is the husband of pW I and he also could not say about the exact location of their property in Ex.BS i.e. sketch plan and he could not speak about the neighbours on the eastern and northern boundaries of the suit schedule property. It is further eiicited through him that he does not have arry idea about the sale consideration of his plot and that he had no necessit5r to enquire about his vendors and the details of the property. He further admitted that he also does real estate business. Thus, it is eiicited from pW2 that though he is into real estate business, he is not aware of any details of the suit scheduie property as to its location, boundaries of neighbours. e) The evidence of pW3 discloses that he is not aware about the vendors, vendor and that he could not speak about how .2 ,,r/' / J i I 'l I l I l i I I i 9 AKS,J & ETD,J LGA No.05 2016 A.Venkateshwariu, the vendor under Ex'Al got the suit schedule property. He only stated that A Venkateshwarlu and Smt.Rajamma are the Pattedars ' RW1 claimed that Smt.V G Rajeshwar ammal purchased f) 3173 Sq.Yards on 9th Hazur 1353 fasli, under Ex Bl from late Syed Muthuja Sharief and that for some years a brick kiln was run in the said land by constructing a house bearing No'2-862 and that subsequentiy, the municipality was upgraded as municipal corporation and a part of their house was demolished and also that they commenced construction in the month of October, lgg4. She further deposed that Sri M A'GaJoor' husband of Ghousia Begum, Sri Venkateshwarlu and others tried to grab their property and therefore, they filed L G C No' 10 of 1987 against them and that Venkateshwarlu and Gafoor hled I.A.No.559 of 1984 to reject their plaint and under Ex E}6' the said appiication was dismissed' She also deposed that O.S.N.294 of 199 1 was filed against one Ramachandram which was decree<1 in their favour and also that they published in Warangal Vani about the suit property asking the public not to purchase the suit schedule property. The evidence of RW2 is aiso in similar lines to that of RW 1 . Exs.C 1 and C2 are the photoryaphs of the suit property. The pahanies show the l 10 A(S,J & ETD,J LGA_No.05 2016 l" only from the years the possessors as pattadar as T.Rama Swamy and Venkateshwarlu and Rajamma. This is 1983-84 to 1986.'82. The petitioner claims that she has purchased the suit propert5z from its owners Sri A.Venkateshwarlu and Smt.A.Rajamma, while the pahanies show that they are the possessors. Further, in support of their contention no title deeds of A.Venkateshwarlu and A.Rajamma are filed by the petitioner. Therefore, when the vendors, title is not proved, there is no question of flow of title from the vendor to the petitioner. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner couid not establish her title to the suit schedule property and therefore, cannot be held to be the owner of the suit schedule property. As a sequel, when the petitioner cannot be decrared as the owner of the property, she has no right to seek for a declaralion of respondents as land grabbers. Therefore, point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered against the petitioner and that the respondents cannot be declared to be the land grabbers.

13. FOINT No.3: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, this Court holds that the Tribunal,s judgment and decree do not need any interfeience. I l l 1 1 I , l L1, AKS,J & ETD,.I tGA No.05 2016 1+. POINT NO.4: In the result, this appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated' 02'06'2012 passed in L'G'C'No'7 of 1998 by the learned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal' Warangal' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// /. K. SRINIVASA RAO r:EGrsrRAR [f ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Tribunal Under AP Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act(ll A.dditional District Court) at Warangal(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI PODILA HARI PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRltt/ RAMA KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK/gh rt* I I J I ! I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LGA.No.S of 2016 2 DRAFTS THE S o ? 31 JlJr Z!25 * ) * DISMISSING THE LGA WITHOUT COSTS i l I I & 6l l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND G RABBIN G APPEAL NO: 5 OF 2016 Between: SmtAligireddy Ahalya R/o. [Vlulkanoor, Bheemadevarapalli, Karimnagar District. Devi, Wo.Shayamsunder Reddy, Occ: Housewife . ...Appellant AND 1 V.S.Rajesh Khanna, S/o.V.G.Somasundaram, Occ: Employee, R/o.Behind Mandakani Bar, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal. 2 V G.somasundaram. s/o.Not Known R/o.Behini Mandakani Bar, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal. ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 7(A) (3 ) of the A.p. Land Grabbing (p) Act, 1982 against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.20 12 passed in LGC No.7 of 19g8 file of the speciar rribunar Under Ap Land Grabbing (prorrlnitionl n"t (ll Additional District Court) at Warangal. -the fhis appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, .. the Judgment and Decree of the Loweicourt and ihe materiar p-apers in the'Case 1nd lgon hearing the arguments of sRr poDrLA HAR| PRASAD, Advocate roi ihe Appellant and of sRr M RAtvrA KRTsHNA, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Land Grabbing Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. fhal there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER '1. The special rribuoar Under Ap Land Grabbing(prohibition) Act([ Additionar District Court) at Warangal

2. Two CD Copies HIGH GOURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE LGA.No.S of 2016 DISMISSING THE LGA WTHOUT COSTS @ bla{