Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, P. SREE SUDHA, JJ.
R. Jaya Balan - Petitioner
Vs.
Mohammad Fazal - Respondent
L.G.O.P. No.442 of 2003
Decided On : 04-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: J C FRANCIS
Transferees pendente lite cannot resist execution of a decree; claims through a vendor declared a land grabber are invalid under the doctrine of lis pendens.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), Order XXI Rule 102, Section 47, Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act - Land grabbing appeal - Appellants claimed title through a vendor declared land grabber - Claim petition was rejected as it lacked cause of action and was barred by lis pendens - The executing court found the appellants had no right to resist execution of the decree. (Paras 12, 13, 40)
(B) Execution Proceedings - A claim petition can be treated as a plaint and is subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 - The provisions of CPC apply to Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, where not inconsistent. (Paras 39, 40)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the execution of a decree declaring their vendor a land grabber, claiming title to land during the pendency of the original proceedings. The Tribunal found their claims were invalid under the doctrine of lis pendens.
Findings of Court:
The claim petition was rejected as it was not maintainable and barred by the provisions of CPC and the Transfer of Property Act.
Issues: Whether the claim petition filed by the appellants was maintainable and whether they could resist execution based on their title through a vendor declared a land grabber.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants, as transferees pendente lite, were barred from resisting execution under Order XXI Rule 102; their claim was invalid due to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land grabbing appeal and tribunal's orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. court's observations on the claim petition's validity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding the applicability of cpc provisions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. legal implications of land transfer during ongoing litigation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. execution proceedings and rights of third parties. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. final conclusion on the appeal's merit and legal standing. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 7. dismissal of the appeal with no order as to costs. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT :
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
This Land Grabbing Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated. 10.02.2021 in E.A. No.40 of 2018 in E.A No.26 of 2018 in E.P. No.361 of 2017 in L.G.O.P. No.442 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos.14 and 20 in the underlying E.A. No.40 of 2018, which is filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC to reject the claim petition filed by the third parties under Section 47 r/w Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 i.e. E.A. No.26 of 2018 filed to declare the order passed in L.G.O.P No.442 of 2003 as in-executable as void ab initio.
3. The brief of the case of the appellants is that the respondent No.19 herein claims to have purchased land in Plot No.220 & 221, to an extent of 600 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.44/1 situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was purchased through a registered Sale Deed dated 09.09.1996, respondent No. 19 had filed L.G.O.P. No.442 of 2003 against the respondent No.21/JDR No.1 to declare him as land grabber in respect of the Schedule Property i.e. Plot Nos.220 and 221 in Survey No.44/1 before the tribunal.
4. On the respondent No. 19 filing the petition before the special tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’). The tribunal during the pendency of the above said L.G.O.P. No.442/2003 appointed an Advocate Commissioner and also the Mandal Surveyor, who had visited the property under Rule 6 of A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Rules and filed his report. The said report categorically demarcated that the schedule property is situated in the Survey No.44/1. Accordingly, the said LGOP was allowed vide order dated. 14.10.2016 declaring the respondent No.21/JDR No.1 as land grabber.
5. The Tribunal while allowing the LGOP had directed the respondent No.21 herein to vacate and handover the possession within 90 days from the date of the order. Since, the respondent No.21/JDR No.1 failed to vacate and handover the possession, the respondent No. 19 herein had filed the E.P. No.361 of 2017 to direct the Respondent No.21/JDR No.1 to deliver the possession. The Executing Court had issued notice to the respondent No.21/JDR No. 1. Despite of service of notice, he failed to appear in the above said E.P, consequently executing court issued the warrant of delivery of possession.
6. In furtherance of order in execution petition, the Bailiff of the Court had visited the E.P. Schedule property on 25.11.2017 and identified the property. Since, there was an existing construction in the Schedule property, the Bailiff could not execute the warrant and the same was returned for passing necessary orders. Therefore respondent No. 19/Decree Holder had filed E.A. No.13 of 2018 and E.A. No.36 of 2018 to break open the lock and provide police protection. Upon the executing court passing orders, the court bailiff along with the Police had visited the property on 09.07.2018 for execution of the warrant, but the same was again returned unexecuted.
7. The respondent No.21/JDR No.1 failed to obey the warrant issued by the court below. However, certain persons including the appellants herein claiming through the respondent No.21 have resisted the warrant of delivery of possession. The third- party claim petitioners thereafter have filed appeal before this court against the order in L.
