Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, G. SHYAM PRASAD, JJ.
Dr. K.L. Narayana – Petitioner
Versus
The Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982-cum-Chief Judge & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26492 of 2016
Decided On : 21-09-2016
Civil Law – Civil Suit – Gift Deed – Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are sons of late Syed Mohiuddin, through his second wife. Respondent Nos.73 to 80 are also the sons through his first wife – It is the pleaded case of respondent Nos.2 to 7, who instituted the L.G.O.P. that their father executed a gift for an extent of Acs.12.00 in favour of respondent Nos.73 to 80 and that by another gift deed he has cancelled the earlier gift deed and bequeathed the said property in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 7. It is their further case that by virtue of said memorandum of gift deed they have become the absolute owners and possessors of the said property – Lower Court has restrained petitioner or any person claiming through him from making further constructions and entering into fresh agreements of sale for alienation of petition schedule property in favour of third parties, creating charge on property by way of mortgage in favour of various banks against project finance and home loans etc., by way of interim injunction – Court further directed both parties to maintain status quo in order to protect the property and rights of parties. Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent No.56 in the I.A. and L.G.O.P. filed this writ petition – Whether petitioners have prima facie right and title and balance of convenience is in their favour and that they are entitled to temporary injunction restraining the 56th respondent, his agents etc., from alienating petition schedule property in favour of third parties during pendency of main L.G.O.P – Held, Respondent Nos.2 to 7 have miserably failed to establish the prima facie case of title and possession. As they failed to take the required steps necessitated by the ULC Act and legalize their alleged title and possession, without which Ex.P.59, even accepting it as a valid document, remains a mere paper, respondent Nos.2 to 7 failed to prove their prima facie title. Similarly, they also failed to get the property mutated in their names in order to prove that the Ex.P.59 was acted upon. Hence, they are not entitled to an order of injunction against the persons who have established their prima facie right to property and legal entitlement to remain in possession and enjoy the same. Thus, at this stage, by alleging certain defects in the title o petitioner, respondent Nos.2 to 7 cannot justify the order passed in their favour by the Special Court – They have not explained as to why they have filed fresh injunction application against petitioner while not pursuing I.A. filed against respondent Nos.8 to 60 in the LGOP, including the petitioner – The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 7 for granting injunction order – Further, element of irreparable injury also lies in favour of the petitioner as the whole project will go haywire, if, at this stage the petitioner is restrained from completing the further construction and honouring the commitments to third parties – It is an eminently fit case for exercising certiorari jurisdiction as the Special Court has made a perverse approach and has failed in weighing the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, which are essential for granting an injunction order – If the order of injunction is not set aside it will result in grave miscarriage of justice – Hence writ petition is allowed.
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. Respondent No.56 in L.G.O.P. No.1126 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, moved this Court by way of the present writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dt.15.7.2016 in I.A. No.5254 of 2014 filed in the said L.G.O.P.
2. The huge litigious background condensed to suit the adjudication of the present writ petition is summarized hereunder. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the sons of late Syed Mohiuddin, through his second wife. Respondent Nos.73 to 80 are also the sons of Syed Mohiuddin through his first wife. It is the pleaded case of respondent Nos.2 to 7, who instituted the L.G.O.P. that their father executed a gift deed dt.31.12.1965 for an extent of Acs.12.00 in favour of respondent Nos.73 to 80 and that by another gift deed dt.16.3.1966 he has cancelled the earlier gift deed and bequeathed the said property in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 7. It is their further case that by virtue of the said memorandum of gift deed they have become the absolute owners and possessors of the said property. They further pleaded that the petitioner herein and some amongst respondent Nos.8 to 72 started litigating among themselves over Ac.9.20 guntas and that they have filed a collusive suit in O.S. No.364 of 1990 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction without impleading respondent Nos.2 to 7. That during the pendency of the suit, the legal heirs of late Sugra Begum and late Madan Lal Gupta were brought on record and that the said suit was dismissed on 27.01.2004. That aggrieved by the said judgment, a collusive appeal in A.S. No.15 of 2005 was filed, that the said appeal was referred to Lok Adalat and that an Award was passed on 26.02.2005, dividing the extent of Ac.9.20 guntas between the legal heirs of Madan Lal Gupta (Acs.5.00) and that of Sugra Begum (Ac.4.20 guntas). That on the basis of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, declarations were filed before the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Authorities by the said two branches and some of them obtained exemption from the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act) vide G.O. Ms. No.533, dt.25.4.2005 as per G.O. Ms. No.456, dt.29.7.2002. That respondent Nos.73 to 80 filed W.P. No.29104 of 2009 questioning the said exemption and secured interim order dt.31.12.2009 and respondent Nos.2 to 7 filed W.P. No.16899 of 2014 seeking suspension of G.O. Ms. No.533, dt.25.4.2004 and that the same is pending.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 further pleaded that the contesting respondents in the L.G.O.P. are claiming title based on a sale deed dt.22.11.1344 Fasli, which is not referable to the land in question, and that the same pertains to Plot No.24 in Sy. No.129 admeasuring 2000 acres situated at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, but not to the land bearing Sy. No.391 (old), T.S. No.4P and 6P. They further pleaded that on 01.11.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., the contesting respondents in the L.G.O.P, caused interference with the possession of respondent Nos.2 to 7 over the property, kidnapped the Security Guard by name Kamlesh and that the purported family members of respondent Nos.2 to 7 (i.e., respondent Nos.73 to 80) filed W.P. No.36606 of 2012 questioning the inaction of the Police and also filed a writ of habeas corpus in connection with the kidnapping of Watchman, besides filing a private complaint based on which Crime No.1161 of 2012 was registered on 11.12.2012. That as no action was taken, and as illegal constructions were sought to be raised, the said respondents have filed W.P. No.39150 of 2012 for stopping the illegal constructions. That in spite of an interim order granted by this Court, the constructions were being carried on unabated forcing respondent Nos.73 to 80 to file C.C. No.45 of 2013. That respondent Nos.2 to 7 filed W.P. Nos.18409 and 20011 of 2014 which are pending. They have further alleged that with the help of respond
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
