IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR,THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
J.Venkaiah – Appellant
Versus
A.Sashidhar Reddy – Respondent
WP 27719/2008
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.27719 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dt.22.10.2008 in L.G.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, at Hyderabad in terms of Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein are the respondents before the Special Court in an application filed by the 1st respondent herein under the provisions of the Act to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers in terms of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act in respect of land admeasuring 12,100 square yards (Acs.2.20 guntas) situated in Sy.No.74/E of Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein had filed application under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare him as owner of the application schedule property, namely, 12,100 square yards (Acs.2.20 guntas) in Sy.No.74/E of Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers; to evict the petitioners from the application schedule land and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the respondent- applicant; to punish the petitioners – respondents under the provisions of the Act; to award mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per annum from the date of grabbing till the date of delivery of possession to the respondent - applicant; and to award damages of Rs.10,000/- per annum; and to award costs of the application to the respondent –
applicant.
5. On the 1st respondent – applicant filing the aforesaid application, the Special Court took cognizance of the same on 03.01.2003, a Gazette Notification dt.27.01.2003 was published calling for objections from the persons interested in the application schedule land. However, no objections have been received. The Special Court had also called for a statutory verification report as required under Rule 6(2) of the Rules made under the Act, which was duly submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal.
6. The case of the 1st respondent – applicant before the Special Court is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.74/E situated at Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from the original owners and possessors, viz., M.Venkat Reddy and L.Satyanarayana Reddy and others under registered sale deed dt.04.04.1981; that on the respondent – applicant purchasing the aforesaid extent of land, the revenue authorities have assigned sub- division number as 74/E and mutated the said application schedule land on to his name in the revenue records; that the 1st respondent – applicant since the date of purchase is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops; and that prior to the purchase of the application schedule land by the respondent – applicant, his vendors were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
7. The 1st respondent – applicant further pleaded that since, the land in the neighbourhood being developed for residential use, the applicant did not undertake agricultural activities in the said land for the past 5 to 6 years; though the 1st respondent – applicant was visiting the application schedule land occasionally, petitioners - respondents taking advantage of his absence have grabbed the land to an extent of 7260 square yards (Ac.1.20 guntas) out of Acs.2.20 guntas without any manner of right or title and have erected a temporary shed some time in the month of June, 2002 and further unauthorizedly raised crop in the application schedule property.
8. The 1st respondent – applicant further contended that though his efforts to co
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.