Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.S.BHATE, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
C.P.Roy - Appellant
Versus
Special Court, under A.P.Land Grabbing Act - Respondent
Decided On : 11-17-99
Andhra Pradesh survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 - A. P. Land Encroachment Act - Section 8 , 7 and 6 – Agricultural Land - Petition was filed against purchasers mentioned in application for eviction and to pay compensation and also for mesne profits in respect of an extent of 4096 square meters of land block H, Ward 10 correlating village, Golconda Mandal - Application was filed - According to State, application schedule land is situated in village, Golconda mandal which was formerly village - Survey of land was conducted revision survey and town survey - As per town survey village was divided into four wards and 52 blocks and application schedule land was classified as government land - According to State, persons mentioned below grabbed schedule property namely, Government property to extent shown against their names and also unauthorisedly constructed pucca houses along with compound walls for residential purpose and they are enjoying said land for last five years, are shown in column of said - According to purchasers, paiki ad measuring 7 acres of land in village - No boundaries were shown about survey number in any of documents filed by occupants - It is an admitted fact that there is no evidence whether patta was granted prior to merger of Sarfekhas with Diwani or by State Government - As per survey record, no such Sy - No - 403/l/paiki is existing and as such said survey number is a fictitious one was never owner of property - Mention of said survey number is not even shown in supplementary village - During Revision survey in year 1352 fis alone correlated, to RS and there is no mention about /paiki - Obviously seized this property without any lawful title - purchasers while purchasing have also not made any enquiries about title - Regarding District Revenue Officer s order marked at Ex - B13, it is averred by State that District revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to pass such an order - Secondly, said District revenue Officer has not gone into question whether patta was granted in favour in respect of paiki ad measuring 7 acres of land - Thirdly, District Revenue Officer has not verified any survey record otherwise to identify disputed land and lastly district Revenue Officer has not issued any directions - Thus, only document relied upon by purchasers has no probative value - truth and validity of said patta purported to be granted in favour has to be established by purchasers - existence of paiki is a fictitious one - After institution of proceedings before Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing – Held , pleadings in LGC are almost similar and identical - Said LGC was filed by one company, represented by its Managing director, - Their case is that they are owners of plot covered by ad measuring 1000 sq - yards situated at Road village - said land originally belonged to one, General Power of Attorney holder held 5 acres of non-agricultural land within limits of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Ward paiki illage - One purchased 5 acres of land under a registered sale deed - Thus said land was stated to be patta land - After purchase, have been mutated in revenue records and pahanies issued for show their names as pattedars and land was registered as patta land - Partitioned said land by metes and bounds under a registered partition deed under which got 6000 sq - yards of land and she sold land to an extent of 1000 sq - yards out of her share of 6000 sq - yards to - Tara Ben under a registered sale deed - Sold said land to an extent of 1000 sq - yards equivalent to 836 - 13 sq - meters under a registered sale deed - That applied for construction of compound wall and obtained permission from Municipal Corporation of hyderabad after paying prescribed fee to a tune of Rs - 29,836 - 13 paise and further amount of Rs - 3,240/- towards municipal taxes sold another 1000 sq - yards out of her 5000 sq - yards under a registered sale deed - They in turn sold said land of 1000 sq - yards to daughter of under a registered sale deed, who in turn sold said land constructions Company under a registered sale deed - Government sanctioned a lay out vide for plots in respect of schedule land - They obtained permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, for construction of residential flats on land purchased - State subordinates who are though aware that purchasers have been in possession and enjoyment of property, trying to dispossess them on ground that purchasers are unauthorised occupants - No notice as contemplated has been issued to purchasers - dispute, if any, between State and purchasers has to be decided by a civil Court and that no action could be taken – Accordingly Disposed of
( 1 ) SINCE the questions of facts and law involved in all these writ petitions are common, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) WRIT Petition Nos. 22323, 22334 and 23999 of 1996 are filed challenging the common order passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in LGC Nos. 45 of 1991 and 12 of 1992 dated 25-9-1996.
( 3 ) LGC No. 45 of 1991 was filed under the provisions of Section" 8 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act, 1982 by the State against (1) C. P. Roy (2) Jagapathi Rao (deleted) (3) M. H. Chinoy
( 4 ) ANIL Kundal. (5) Smt. Cherukuri srilaxmi (6) M/s. Meenakshi Constructions represented by its Managing Director sivarama Prasad (7) Jamuna and (8) Shaik ismail before the Special Court. 4. LGC No. 12 of 1992 was filed by the applicants viz. , Cherukuri Srilaxmi and m/s. Meenakshi Constructions Company, represented by its Managing Director, sivarama Prasad in the Court of the additional Chief Judge-cum-Vacation Judge (Additional Judge), City Civil Court, hyderabad, in OS No. 520 of 1992. It was later transferred to the Special Court under andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act, Hyderabad, where LGC No. 45 of 1991 was pending. Since the facts and law involved in both the cases are similar, on transfer the same was numbered as LGC no. 12 of 1992. The said case was filed against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to Government, revenue Department (2) District Collector, hyderabad (3) Revenue Divisional Officer, hyderabad and (4) Mandal Revenue Officer, golconda.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the common order passed in LGC Nos. 45 of 1991 and 12 of 1992 dated 25-9-1996, Writ Petition no. 22323 of 1996 is filed by C. P. Roy represented by General Power of Attorney vasaniha Rai and the Writ Petition No. 22334 of 1996 is filed by M. H. Chenoy, son of Hoshang Chenoy and also the Writ petition No. 23999 of 1996 is filed by m/s. Meenakshi Constructions represented by its Managing Director C. Srirama Prasad (2) Cherukuri Srilakshmi (died) by LRs. , cherukur Suryanarayana Murthy and (3) Cherukuri Ramakrishna (died) son of late Veeraju.
( 6 ) WRIT Petition No. 28402 of 1998 is filed by one Dr. Y. S. Rajeshekar Reddy, the then Member of Parliament, son of Y. S. Raja Reddy against the State of Andhra pradesh represented by the Revenue divisional Officer, Hyderabad, and the special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.
( 7 ) 1 he relicts sought in the first three writ petitions are that the common order passed by the Special Court under Andhra pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, hyderabad, shall be quashed as illegal and to grant such other reliefs.
( 8 ) THE reliefs sought in the Writ petition No. 28402 of 1998 are to declare the proceedings in LGC No. 88 of 1998 as illegal.
( 9 ) FOR disposal of these cases to avoid confusion, the rank of the parties has been referred to as State, Subordinates and the purchasers.
( 10 ) THE facts involved in all the writ petitions are almost identical. The following are the few facts which gave rise for initiation for proceedings.
( 11 ) LGC No. 45 of 1991 was filed against the purchasers mentioned in the application for the eviction and to pay compensation and also for mesne profits in respect of an extent of 4096 square meters of land in TS No. 1/1/1, block H, Ward 10 correlating to Sy. No. 403/p of Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal. The said application was filed under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Act ). According to the State, the application schedule land is situated in shaikpet village, Golconda mandal which was formerly a Sarfekhas village. The survey of the land was conducted in the year 1326 F; the revision survey in the year 1340 F and the town survey during the year 1965-79 under the Andhra Pradesh survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (hereinafter re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
