SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(AP) 943

2006 (5) ALT 690 (D.B.)
T.CH. SURY A RAO and G. CHANDRAIAH, JJ.
W.P. No.19619 of 2001 and Batch
Decided on 23-8-2006.
Jonnalagadda Samrajyam and others
vs.
Registrar, The Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad and another
M/s. Syed Shareef Ahmed, Vedula Venkata Ramana, P. Revathi, V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, G. Pedda Babu and M.S. Prasad, Counsel for the Petitioners.
G.P. for Revenue for Respondent No.1.
Mr. B.V. Rama Mohan Rao, Counsel for Respondent No.2.

Headnote:

A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1966 – Section 76 (1) – A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – Sections 8, 7 – Land Dispute – Grabbing of Land – Petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash the judgment of the Special Court – Property was of no use, Devasthanam, proposed to sell the same – Department of Endowments granted permission for its sale under a notification– Since no objections had been received, the land in dispute was sold under a registered sale deed, in favour of the society for a consideration – Earlier thereto, an agreement of sale, was executed, under which, possession was also delivered to society – Devasthanam filed before Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, for declaration that the persons who were in occupation of the said land in dispute were encroachers – By an order, Deputy Commissioner declared them as encroachers – Whether the second respondent society having been registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act could maintain an application either under Section 7-A or 8 of the Act – Whether the issue of title by prescription is within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal/Special Court – Whether the writ petitioners were not the land grabbers – Held, Finding of Special Court that respondents failed to prove the plea of adverse possession is impeccable and quite unassailable – It has not been shown before us that any jurisdictional error has been committed by the Special Court – Contention that a general notice was issued by the applicant initially and that notice amounts to a quit notice and consequently the application cannot be maintained, cannot also be considered, having regard to the concisions reached by us hereinabove; they are quite not relevant to deal with the same – It is not as though the parties are remediless – They can approach a competent civil Court for redressal of their grievances – Writ Petitions Allowed

ORDER (Per T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.)

Inasmuch as common questions of law and fact are involved and as all these Writ Petitions emanate from an order, dated 10-8-2001, in L.G.A.No.11 of 1998, on the file of the learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (for short, the Act), they can be disposed of together.

2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash the judgment of the Special Court-referred to hereinabove.

3. A concise statement of facts need be stated for brevity and better understanding of the matter thus:

The second respondent herein, which is known as Telaga Mahajana Sangham, Vijayawada, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said society through its Secretary filed an application in L.G.O.P.No.138 of 1984 before the Special Tribunal, Krishna at Machilipatnam, against the writ petitioners and others. The land in dispute, which is an extent of 1.87 cents, was part of larger extent of 4.87 cents of land which was originally belonged to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, situate at Brahmin street, Kothapata, Vijayawada. The said property containing full of pits was a low lying area and was subjected to inundation and water stagnation. Since the property was of no use, the Devasthanam, proposed to sell the same. The Department of Endowments granted permission for its sale under a notification No.A6/02003/76, dated 09-01-1978. Pursuant thereto a notification was published in Telugu daily newspaper inviting objections. Since no objections had been received, the land in dispute was sold under a registered sale deed, dated 22-3-1980, in favour of the society for a consideration of RS.2, 15,050/-. Earlier thereto, an agreement of sale, dated 26-02-1980, was executed, under which, possession was also delivered to the society. Out of the remaining extent of land, the Devasthanam sold an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in favour of Ramanama Sankeerthana Sangh and the balance Ac.1.00 was sold in favour of Kakani Building Society.

4. Long prior to the said sale, the Devasthanam filed OANo.67 of 1970 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, for declaration that the persons who were in occupation of the said land in dispute were encroachers. By an order, dated 18-01-1971, the Deputy Commissioner declared them as encroachers. Proceedings were initiated under Section 76 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1966, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, in M.P.No.1181 of 1978 for eviction of the encroachers. The learned Magistrate by an order, dated 10-10-1979, ordered removal of the encroachers. The encroachers were changing their occupations from time to time. Thirty-One persons, who were in occupation of the entire extent of the land, filed Writ Petition NO.1251 of 1976 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, which eventually ended in dismissal on 02-04-1976. The respondents without any manner of right, title or interest, grabbed the property and some raised huts and some constructed houses thereon. The petitioner-society, which purchased the land for the purpose of constructing a Kalyana Mandapam for the use of general public, for starting technical institutions and for construction of buildings and hostels for that purpose, filed the application for eviction of the land grabbers.

5. Some of the respondents filed separate counters, some chose not to file any counters and some remained ex parte. They generally denied the allegations about the right, title and ownership of the Devasthanam. They pleaded that they were not parties to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and denied the allegation of grabbing the land. Their specific case was that some of the respondents having been in occupation of the disputed site from times immemorial by levelling the sites and by raising structures thereon after having incurred heavy expenditure p




























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top