Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. SUBHASH REDDY & A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, JJ.
Dundoo Ravi Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, represented by its Registrar & Another - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 1783, 1788 & 1885 of 2015
Decided on : 13-10-2015
For the Petitioner:Challa Sitaramaiah, S. Balchand, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R2, The Advocate General.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 226 – Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act, 1982 – Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act –Challenging the common order and respondent in on the file of the Special Court filed these three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed seeking amendment of the counter filed in the aforesaid was filed for granting of leave to file document; and was filed for recalling R.W.1 for marking the said document. Special Court, by the aforesaid common order, dismissed all the three petitions. Hence instant writ petitions seeking the relief of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and quash the said order and prohibit the Special Court from proceeding with any further enquiry in the aforesaid L.G.C. advertence in adjudicating upon the controversy in the instant writ petitions erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, against the present writ petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh alleging that the writ petitioner occupied an extent of 1692 square yards in and constructed a building and requesting the Special Court to evict him and deliver the vacant possession and also award compensation for wrongful possession respondent therein set up the stand that the said extent originally owned and possessed by one and his name was recorded in the municipal records, later he sold it to one Abdul under a registered sale deed dated who, in turn, sold it to the father of the writ petitioner under a registered sale deed. It is stated that the writ petitioner constructed the building now existing with the permission of the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation has been collecting property tax and even assessment was done and amount was collected by the department. It is stated that even Public Works Department took over an area of 344 square yards adjoining the said land from the original owner for widening the road and the compensation was also paid –Held, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner invited us to formulate a question for consideration as to “whether the order passed by the Tribunal on review in even it confirms, supersedes the order in With due respects to his submission, we do not think to do so at this stage. These writ petitions are filed challenging the dismissal of I.A. applications were filed by the writ petitioner pursuant to the order of Supreme Court Supreme Court while disposing of the said S.L.P., granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate all questions of law available to him including the question of maintainability in law before the Special Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no doubt submitted that since the question of law is involved, though, no amendment is introduced in the counter, still, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can deliberate on the issue agitated and to dispose of the writ petition without further subjecting the writ petitioner to submit himself to the Special Court. With due regards to his submission, we are of the opinion when the order of the Supreme Court expresses that the petitioner would be at liberty to agitate all questions of law available to him in law including the question of maintainability before the Special Court, with respect we opine that we would have to oblige the same, and, therefore, we are not inclined to express anything on the submissions touching the order passed in the review petition by the Special Court, which replaces the original order in the L.G.C. by supersession and the decisions relied on the main issue as well as the ancillary issue touching the stages in the review petition. It is no doubt true, the Special Court has considered the submission of the writ petitioner as respondent before it, touching the said issue and made an observation referred to herein before, but that would not, in any way, preclude the Special Court in deciding the maintainability after the counter is amended by addition of paragraph Nos.15 and 16 and in the light of the authorities submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner herein and the learned Advocate General for the respondent-State on being agitated before it – Writ petitions are allowed.
A. Shankar Narayana, J.
1. Challenging the common order and decretal order dated 16.12.2014 in I.A. Nos.859, 860 and 888 of 2014, the respondent in L.G.C. No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘Special Court’) filed these three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. I.A. No.859 of 2014 was filed seeking amendment of the counter filed in the aforesaid L.G.C.; I.A. No.860 of 2014 was filed for granting of leave to file document; and I.A. No.888 of 2014 was filed for recalling R.W.1 for marking the said document. The Special Court, by the aforesaid common order, dismissed all the three petitions. Hence, the instant writ petitions seeking the relief of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and quash the said order and prohibit the Special Court from proceeding with any further enquiry in the aforesaid L.G.C.
3. A brief narration of the proceedings in L.G.C. No.10 of 1990 requires advertence in adjudicating upon the controversy in the instant writ petitions.
4. The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad, filed L.G.C. No.10 of 1990 against the present writ petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’) alleging that the writ petitioner unauthorisedly occupied an extent of 1692 square yards in Sy.No.43 of Bholakpur village, Secunderabad and constructed a building and requesting the Special Court to evict him and deliver the vacant possession and also award compensation for wrongful possession. The respondent therein (writ petitioner) set up the stand that the said extent originally owned and possessed by one Mirza Mohiuniddin Baig and his name was recorded in the municipal records, later he sold it to one Abdul Gafoor under a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1954, who, in turn, sold it to the father of the writ petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1957. It is stated that the writ petitioner constructed the building now existing with the permission of the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation has been collecting property tax and even nonagricultural assessment was done and amount was collected by the department. It is stated that even Public Works Department took over an area of 344 square yards adjoining the said land on 11.03.1357 Fasli from the original owner for widening the road and the compensation was also paid.
5. The parties entered into trial. The Special Court on merits held that the writ petitioner acquired a valid title basing on the payment of municipal tax, permission granted for construction of building, payment of non-agricultural assessment and the circumstance of payment of compensation by acquiring the land in road widening in Public Works Department and the Special Court has also held that the writ petitioner perfected title by adverse possession.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the State filed a review petition in I.A. No.1767 of 1994 on 06.12.1994 under Section 17A read with Rule 18 of the Act. The writ petitioner has also filed counter therein after notice. T h e Special Court having heard both sides, reserved it for orders on 20.02.1995 and dismissed the review petition on 07.03.1995. Thereafter, the State filed W.P. No.260 of 1998 against the orders in L.G.C. No.10 of 1990. The State has also filed another writ petition in W.P. No.2111 of 1998 against the orders in L.G.C. No.104 of 1990, which orders were passed on 05.10.1994. This Court having heard both sides, allowed the writ petitions setting aside the orders and remanded the matters for re-consideration by formulating the points for determination. Aggrieved by the order of remittance, respondent in L.G.C. preferred S.L.P.(C) No.24389 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of leaving open to the respondent in L.G.C. to raise all questions of law incl
