IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, P. SREE SUDHA, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh – Petitioner
Versus
Vijayanthi Co-operative Housing Society – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19106 of 2010
Decided On : 28-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. scope of article 226 petitions and jurisdiction issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claim of ownership under the a.p. land grabbing act. (Para 5 , 6 , 29) |
| 3. evidence and documentation issues in property claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. possession and public knowledge affecting property rights. (Para 19 , 20 , 39) |
| 5. maintenance of property rights and legislative implications. (Para 24 , 30 , 45 , 46) |
| 6. implications of nay evidence regarding trespass or land grabbing. (Para 58 , 62 , 85) |
| 7. judicial review limitations regarding findings of special courts. (Para 124 , 125 , 126) |
| 8. dismissal of writ petitions and costs awarded. (Para 189 , 190 , 191) |
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/applicants, with the following prayer:
It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records from the Hon'ble Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (P) Act, Hyderabad in LGC No.167 of 1997 and consequently quash the Judgement and Decree passed by the Special Court in LGC No.167 of 1997, dated 18.03.2010 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice holding that the Government is the owner of the schedule property and declare the Respondents herein as land grabbers in respect of land admeasuring Ac.197.32 Gts in Sy.No.74 of Marredpally Paigah and Ac.27.27 Gts in Sy.No.844/1 and Ac.4.33 Gts in Sy No. 74 of Marredpally Paigah of Malkajgiri village, situated at Mahendra Hills Hyderabad and direct the Special Court to grant all the reliefs that were sought in LGC No.167 of 1997 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The Writ Petitioner herein is the applicant in the L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the Act’).
3. The respondents herein are the respondents therein.
4. The Special Court on the request of the Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the issues involved in the following mentioned cases are one and the same clubbed the LGC No.167 of 1997 with LGC No.115 of 1999; LGC No.16 of 2008; LGC No.17 of 2008; LGC No.18 of 2008; LGC No.19 of 2008; LGC No.20 of 2008; LGC No.21 of 2008; LGC No.22 of 2008; and LGC No.23 of 2008, and by Common judgment dated 18.03.2010 dismissed all the LGCs filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed in L.G.C No. 167 of 1997, the present Writ Petition is filed.
I. Case of the Applicant before Special Court:
5. The petitioner/applicantthrough MRO filed the underlying application vide LGC No.167 of 1997 claiming the land admeasuring Ac.197.32 gts in Sy.No.74 of Marredpally (Paigah) and Ac. 27.27 gts of Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri village are classified as Government landas per pahani pathrika of 1356 Fasli; and that the respondents as shown before the Special Court have grabbed the same therefore, are to be declared as land grabbers under the Act.
6. The case of the applicant in the underlying application as set out in the concise statement in brief is as under:
i. The Nazim Atiyat in an application filed by Nawab Zaher Yar Jung conducted Inam enquiry of Paigah Asmanjahi and passed orders on 28.10.1968, wherein it was pointed out 107 Villages were escheated to the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed to the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, W.P.No.3530 of 1977 was filed and the same was also dismissed and then a writ appeal vide W.A.No.289 of 1978 was filed which was allowed by order dated 20.12.1993 directing the Board of Revenue to scrutinize the relevant revenue record and to ascertain whether the 72 villages form’s part and parcel of Asmanjahi paigah or not and to pass appropriate order.
ii. Further, there are no sub-divisions for Sy No.7
Sarwarlal and Ors. vs. The State of Hyderabad
Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Goundla Venkaiah and another
Nagubai Ammal and Ors. vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vss. Jagannath
Anil Kumar Modi v. Tarsem Kumar Gupta
K.V. Sreenivasa Rao Vs Special Court
State of A.P. v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao
Goundla Venkaiah and another(Supra)
State of A.P. v. Prameela Modi
Kaushik Coop. Building Society v. N. Parvathamma
Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple v. Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu
Om Prakash Singh v. M. Lingamaiah
Bahaggan Bai v. Mandal Revenue Officer, R.R. Dist
K. Sharada Bai vs. Shamshunnisa
Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. thru. DIR vs. State of Haryana and Ors
AI
The burden of proof in land ownership disputes lies with the claimant; mere allegations without evidence of title or ownership do not suffice to substantiate claims under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act.
Points of Law : Three principles of res judicata as between co-defendants were delineated as: (1) There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants; (2) it must be necessary to decide this ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.