Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S.V. Bhatt, J.
K. Annapurna Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India and others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 4985, 21733 & 21914 of 2014
Decided On : 11-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Tulasi Krishna, Tarun G. Reddy, Rama Raju Mantena
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Lakshman, Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Claim petition - Petitioners in these three writ petitions are different individuals and respondents 1 and 2 are common - Lessors through whom the right to possession is claimed, are arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 to 6 or respondent No. 3 respectively - Prayers in these writ petitions and the points for consideration are similar - Held, One of the first steps undertaken in discharging the functions and powers by the authorities under the PMLA - Petitioners are governed by the law as on the date of orders passed under Section 5(5) and 8(4) and therefore by operation of Section 8(4) read with possession claimed to have been taken and without any resistance thereafter by the accused in the Enforcement Case, the steps taken by the 2nd respondent are one in the nature of removing the occupation of persons without right and title and for such eventualities Section 54 authorises the 2nd respondent to take the assistance of one or the other authorities specified therein - Proceedings, are steps taken in accordance with law and are legal and valid - Petition dismissed. (Para 42)
S.V. Bhatt, J.
Heard Sri C. Tulasi Krishna, Sri Tarun G. Reddy and Sri M. Rama Raju for petitioners in these three writ petitions and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar for 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioners in these three writ petitions are different individuals and respondents 1 and 2 are common. The lessors through whom the right to possession is claimed, are arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 to 6 or respondent No. 3 respectively. The prayers in these writ petitions and the points for consideration are similar. Hence the writ petitions disposed of by this common order.
3. Before adverting to the writ prayers, the Court finds it convenient to state the subject matter of each one of these writ petitions and also person/company through whom the right of lease or possession is claimed by petitioners.
W.P. No. 4985 of 2014
4. The petitioner claims possession as cultivating tenant of Ac.145-71 cents in Sy. Nos. 1, 107/7, 106, 108, 109/1, 109/2 and 112 situated at Vemavaram and Anuru Villages, Thadongi Mandal, East Godavari District.
5. The petitioner challenges proceedings No. ECIR/I/HZO/2009/2971 dated 19.12.2013 ordering eviction of the petitioner, as illegal and violative of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA 2002').
W.P. No. 21733 of 2014
6. The petitioner claims possession as tenant of land measuring 840 sq. yards, Plot No. 48, Sy. No. 174 situated at Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. The petitioner challenges proceedings No. ECIR/I/HZO/2009 dated 24.07.2014 evicting the petitioner, as illegal and violative of the PMLA 2002.
W.P. No. 21914 of 2014
8. The petitioner claims possession as tenant of land measuring 700 sq. yards, Plot No. 58, Sy. No. 174 situated at Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
9. The petitioner challenges proceedings No. ECIR/I/HZO/2009 dated 24.07.2014 evicting the petitioner as illegal and violative of the PMLA 2002.
Averments in W.P. No. 4985 of 2014:
10. One K. Annapurna Kumari wife of K.S.S. Prasada Raju claims to be an agriculturist and earning the livelihood by carrying out agricultural operations. The petitioner states that for the benefit of herself and her family members, she entered into an agreement for carrying out agricultural activities on kaul basis with 3rd respondent and claims to be in possession of Acs.145-71 cents in Sy. Nos. 1, 107/7, 106, 108, 109/1, 109/2 and 112.
11. Paragraph 5' of the affidavit alleges that petitioner after entering into agreement for taking the land on kaul in September, 2009, for a period of ten years with her family members invested considerable amount for the purpose of levelling the land brought under cultivation and they have been cultivating the subject matter.
12. It is important to notice at this stage of narration that the petitioner does not refer to date on which the lease agreement was entered into, but month is stated as September, 2009 and it is also her case that so called arrangement or agreement with the 3rd respondent is not evidenced through registered deed. Annexures filed along with the writ affidavit substantially relate to the correspondence or the order communicated by 2nd respondent. In other words, the basic document on which the petitioner is relying on is not filed along with writ petition.
Averments in W.P. No. 21733 of 2014:
13. One R.Gajapati Kumar Raju S/o. V. Rama Raju alleges that the petitioner entered into lease arrangement with 3rd respondent (B.Teja Raju S/o. B.Ramalinga Raju) for an independent Villa with built up area of 4500 sq. ft. in an extent of 840 sq. yards in Plot No. 48 in Sy. No. 174 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The lease deed is filed as annexure P-1. Annexure P-1 (dated 05.03.2010) is an unregistered and executed on a hundred rupees non-judicial stamp paper. Annexure P-1 is for six years subject to other terms and conditions referred in annexure P-1.
Averments in W.P. No. 21914 of 2014:
14. One D. Rajesh S/o.
