Telangana High Court
Mirza Basheer Baig vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By ... on 8 June, 2023
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
I.A.NOS.1, 2 AND 3 OF 2022 IN W.P.NO.14062 OF 2010
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.14062 OF 2010
COMMON ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seeking to deprive the petitioner and his family members, of their property rights in respect of the land in Survey Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring 4,595 square yards situated at Lalaguda Village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District, as otherwise than by due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional by holding that the order passed covering the Declaration filed by the father of the 3rd respondent in Proc.F1/2808/76 holding him to be excess land holder is in respect of Survey No.202 of Lalaguda Village and shall not bind the petitioner and his family members and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Subsequently, the Writ Petitioner died and vide order dt.25.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021, petitioners 2 and 3 were W.P.No.14062 of 2010 2 impleaded as writ petitioners 2 and 3 in the place of the sole deceased writ petitioner. Thereafter, writ petitioners 2 and 3 have filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022.
I.A.No.1 of 2022
3. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed seeking amendment of the prayer in the main Writ Petition seeking consequential relief, i.e., to direct respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land admeasuring 4,595 square yards in old Survey No.179 corresponding to new Survey Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring 4,595 square yards of Lalaguda Village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad (Premises Nos.12-5-149/6/C/5 and H.No.12-5-12- 3/1/A/5 of Bathkammakunta South Lalaguda, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District) in the interest of justice, failing which the petitioners would suffer serious loss and damage.
4. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit objecting to the amendment of the prayer on the ground that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question and the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the civil Court by filing a civil suit and hence, amendment of the prayer is non est in the eye of law and is beyond the scope of the W.P.No.14062 of 2010 3 Writ Petition and that it is filed after a lapse of 12 years after filing of the Writ Petition. Further, it is submitted that without challenging any of the orders of the respondents at any point of time, the petitioners are trying to amend the writ prayer and therefore, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners had filed objections before the concerned District Collector, claiming NOC for building permission in respect of the land in question and the said objections were rejected by the District Collector by order dt.12.05.2010 and the writ petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent were directed to approach the competent civil Court to prove their title in respect of the land in question and therefore, the writ petitioners have no title, right or possession over the land in question and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek the remedy of non-interference with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land. Respondent No.4 therefore sought dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2022.
5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit stating that the amendment of the prayer is very essential in order to put an end to the litigation which has been pending since long. It is submitted that as the respondent authorities wanted to take possession of the property of the W.P.No.14062 of 2010 4 petitioners under the guise of an order passed under ULC Act in respect of some other property/survey number, the Writ Petition was filed and interim orders were granted by this Court and therefore, the petitioners continue to be in possession of the property. It is further submitted that by the amendment of the prayer and impleadment of respondents 4 and 5, the scope of the Writ Petition is not enlarged, but it will only put an end to the litigation pending between the parties. Thus, the prayer in I.A.No.1 of 2022 was justified.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that in the Writ Petition, the prayer is to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in seeking to deprive the petitioner and his family members of the property rights in respect of the subject land, as illegal and arbitrary. The consequential prayer is not to interfere with their possession in the subject land. Therefore, this Court finds that the amended prayer would not, in any way, enlarge the scope of the Writ Petition and it will only put an end to multiplicity of the litigation.
7. Therefore, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments to the prayer portion of the Writ Petition.
W.P.No.14062 of 20105 I.A.No.2 of 2022
8. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to implead the proposed respondents 4 and 5, i.e., the District Collector, Hyderabad and Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad, as respondents 4 and 5 to the Writ Petition. It is stated that the proposed respondents 4 and 5 are necessary and proper parties to the Writ Petition for obtaining a comprehensive relief. It is stated that the land admeasuring 19.24 acres in old Survey No.179 corresponding to new Survey Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring 4,595 square yards of Lalaguda Village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad was originally owned by one Sirajunnisa Begum under registered sale deed bearing Document No.1752/1338F dated 5th day Aban 1338F from one Nawab Khudrat Nawaz Jung Bahadur and that though the said land never belonged to the unofficial respondent No.3, the father of the unofficial respondent No.3 has mischievously filed Urban Land Ceiling Declaration in respect of the land that it belongs to him and the land was declared as surplus land to an extent of 4,595 square yards in old Survey No.179 corresponding to new Survey Nos.203 and 204 of Lalaguda Village, Maredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District. It is submitted that on this basis, the revenue authorities of the State are claiming right over the W.P.No.14062 of 2010 6 land and are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their land. Therefore, the proposed respondents, i.e., the Tahsildar and the District Collector are necessary and proper parties to this Writ Petition for proper adjudication of the issue.
9. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit objecting to the implead petition also, for the very same reasons given in the affidavit filed raising objections to the amendment of the prayer. However, it is noticed that the revenue authorities are also claiming the property to be the Government land by virtue of the declaration made by the 3rd respondent under the ULC Act and have already filed their counter affidavits to the Writ Petition.
10. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the proposed respondents 4 and 5 are also proper and necessary parties to the Writ Petition and accordingly they are impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 in the main Writ Petition. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments to the cause title.
11. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is accordingly allowed.
W.P.No.14062 of 20107 I.A.No.3 of 2022
12. I.A.No.3 of 2022 is filed by a third party claiming to be purchaser of the property from the 3rd respondent, praying to implead him as respondent No.6 in the main Writ Petition.
13. The writ petitioners 2 and 3 have also filed their counter affidavit objecting to the impleadment of the proposed 6th respondent.
14. Having regard to the fact that the proposed 6th respondent is only espousing the cause of the 3rd respondent who is already on record, any order passed in this case would be binding on the successors-in-interest of the 3rd respondent as well. Therefore, participation of the proposed 6th respondent in the present proceedings is not necessary.
15. Therefore, I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking impleadment of the proposed 6th respondent is dismissed.
W.P.No.14062 of 2010
16. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the land in old Survey No.179 corresponding to new Survey Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring Ac.19.24 guntas situated at Lalaguda, Hyderabad belonged to one Smt. Siraj Unnisa Begum, W/o Nawab W.P.No.14062 of 2010 8 Basheer Yar Jung having purchased the same through registered sale deed in the year 1928 and after her death, her son, Nawab Khusro Yar Jung, succeeded to the said property. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the son of Nawab Khusro Yar Jung and that he and his family members have succeeded to the said property. It is submitted that thereafter, various extents of land were sold and only an extent of 4,595 square yards is remaining with them in Survey Nos.203 and 204 of Lalaguda Village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District. Petitioner No.1 and his family members are said to have entered into an agreement of sale in favour of one Lakshminarayana and Anil Reddy during the year 1986 and on behalf of the 1st petitioner and his family members, the said agreement holders made applications to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for sub-division of the land for making the same into plots. A tentative layout was sanctioned by the Additional City Planner on 29.02.1988 making the land into 11 plots after leaving areas as per Layout Rules.
17. It is submitted that the father of the 3rd respondent Mr. S.M.S. Vijayam also filed an application for layout in respect of the above mentioned land claiming it to be in Survey No.202. However, after W.P.No.14062 of 2010 9 conducting survey, the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad cancelled the layout issued in favour of Mr. S.M.S. Vijayam and sanctioned layout in favour of petitioner No.1. It is submitted that questioning the same, Mr. S.M.S. Vijayam and his brother filed a suit in O.S.No.225 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 07.02.1995.
18. Another suit O.S.No.406 of 1989 was filed by the 3rd respondent and his brother for injunction against the agreement holders of petitioner No.1 claiming title over an extent of 4,922 square yards in Survey No.202 corresponding to new Survey No.207 of Lalaguda Village. An Interlocutory Application filed by them for grant of interim injunction was dismissed, against which they filed C.M.A.No.1624 of 1991 and this Court dismissed the same on 15.06.1993 and the further appeal in L.P.A.No.317 of 1992 was also dismissed by this Court on 15.06.1993. It is submitted that subsequently, the suit itself was dismissed on 27.07.1994.
19. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent and his brother again filed a suit in O.S.No.877 of 1990 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, W.P.No.14062 of 2010 10 City Civil Court, Hyderabad for permanent injunction against petitioner No.1 and his sister, which was also dismissed on 06.09.1994.
20. Thus, the 3rd respondent has been claiming the subject property to be his property in Survey No.202 of Lalaguda Village, but all the suits filed by him, his brother and his predecessor have been dismissed by the Courts. He had also initiated proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The Executive Magistrate attached the subject land under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. and took possession of the property on 11.01.1991 and thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Charminar by order dt.15.02.1991 was directed to inspect the suit land along with the Inspector of Survey and demarcate the disputed land. However, the said order was challenged by the 3rd respondent and his brother in Criminal Petition No.334 of 1991 to quash the said proceedings. Ultimately, the Court has disposed of the Criminal Petition by observing that there are many civil suits pending between the parties and therefore, directed the higher officials of the Survey Department to inspect the suit land and localize the same with the assistance of the Inspector of Survey with reference to survey records and thereafter, complete the enquiry under W.P.No.14062 of 2010 11 Section 146 of Cr.P.C. and to pass final orders. It is submitted that thereafter, the land was surveyed by the Executive Magistrate and it was held that the disputed land was in Survey Nos.203 and 204 and under cover of panchanama, the said land was handed over to petitioner No.1 and his family members from 13.06.1991. It is further submitted that against the order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.334 of 1991, the 3rd respondent and his brother approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.662 of 1996 and by orders dt.30.04.1996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same observing that the learned Judge has only issued directions for demarcating the land and localizing the same with the assistance of the Inspector of Survey and in view of the same, it is not a case warranting interference. In view of the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and handing over of the possession of the land to petitioner No.1 and his family members, the proceedings were closed by the Executive Magistrate.
21. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent and his brother, thereafter, questioned the delivery of possession of the land to petitioner No.1 by the Executive Magistrate by filing Criminal Petition Nos.1518 of 1991 and 1339 of 1991 before this Court, which were both dismissed on W.P.No.14062 of 2010 12 21.10.1992. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent also filed Land Grabbing Case No.266 of 1995 which was also dismissed holding that petitioner No.1 and his family members are not land grabbers. The review petition filed thereafter was also dismissed. Thus, it is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 and his family members have been held to be owners and possessors of the subject land.
22. It is submitted that in so far as the claim of the respondents is concerned, the father of the 3rd respondent has filed a Declaration under the provisions of the ULC Act and orders were passed on 19.12.1978 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act treating him to be the excess land holder to the extent of 2730.82 square metres, against which an appeal was filed by him. It is submitted that on coming to know about the order dt.19.12.1978 and the appeal filed against the said order, petitioner No.1 and his family members filed objections on 08.08.1980 stating that the land belongs to them and the father of the 3rd respondent has been claiming the property to be in Survey No.202 and requested not to consider the said application under the guise of Survey No.202 since the father of the 3rd respondent was showing the property in Survey Nos.203 and 204 which is owned by petitioner No.1 and his family members. It W.P.No.14062 of 2010 13 is submitted that thereafter, no further action was taken by the respondents. However, when petitioner No.1 and his family members were making preparations to make constructions and approached the Municipal Corporation for the same, they came to know that the land is being treated as excess land under the ULC Act on the basis of the Declaration filed by the father of the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.F1/2808/76 and when petitioner No.1 applied for NOC from the office of the District Collector, he was informed that since there is title dispute, the Committee constituted for grant of NOCs cannot go into this aspect and directed the parties to approach Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings under the ULC Act, which were initiated by the father of the 3rd respondent, were in respect of the land he claims to be in Survey No.202 of Lalaguda Village and the same had nothing to do with the petitioners' land in Survey Nos.203 and 204 of Lalaguda Village. It is submitted that it is only on the directions of this Court that the Executive Magistrate has directed for survey and the Survey Department has also found that the subject land in Survey Nos.203 and 204 belonged to petitioner No.1 and his family members and therefore, any Declaration filed by the father of the 3rd respondent does not bind the petitioner No.1 or his W.P.No.14062 of 2010 14 family members. It is alleged that in the guise of owning land in Survey No.202, the respondents are trying to enter and take possession of the 1st petitioner's property in Survey Nos.203 and 204. It is submitted that the survey as well as the earlier proceedings have established that petitioner No.1 and his family members are owners and possessors of the property in Survey Nos.203 and 204, i.e., the subject property. It is submitted that under the ULC Act, possession of surplus land in Survey No.202 was taken away on 11.03.2008 and only on obtaining copies of the said proceedings, petitioner No.1 has come to know about the same. It is submitted that further proceedings also show that the land, which is taken possession of, is in Survey No.202 of Lalaguda Village and it is shown as Bathkammakunta of Lalaguda and there is neither any plan nor any sub-division, but some plot numbers have been mentioned in Survey No.202. It is submitted that the layout granted in favour of the father of the 3rd respondent was already cancelled and therefore, the respondents now cannot, under the guise of taking possession of excess land in Survey No.202, enter and disturb the possession of petitioner No.1 in Survey Nos.203 and 204. Challenging the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess petitioner No.1 from their property in W.P.No.14062 of 2010 15 respect of the land in Survey Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring 4,595 square yards, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
23. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit stating that the father of the 3rd respondent herein has filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 declaring the land to be an extent of 4,216 square metres in Survey No.202 locally named as Batkammakunta, Lalaguda Village under the limits of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and after enquiry by the enquiry officer, it was revealed that the declarant has purchased the property through registered sale deeds from Mr. Moin Yar Jung and basing on the said enquiry report and the documents filed by the declarant and statement under Section 8(1) of the Act, a notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 19.02.1978 declaring that the declarant holds 3,730.82 square metres of vacant land. It is submitted that out of the total area, the father of the 3rd respondent was allowed to retain an extent of 1,000 square metres under Section 4(1) of the Act and he was declared as surplus vacant land holder. It is submitted that the draft statement was issued calling for objections on 19.02.1978 and since no objections were received from anyone, the declarant has been declared W.P.No.14062 of 2010 16 to have held surplus vacant land to extent of 2,730.82 square metres and accordingly final orders under Section 8(4) of the Act were passed on 12.06.1978. It is submitted that aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, the father of the 3rd respondent has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of appeals, which was dismissed vide proceedings No.UC2/2512/79 dt.25.02.1983 and therefore notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 06.04.1983. Questioning the order dt.25.02.1983 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, W.P.No.5001 of 1983 was filed, but the same was dismissed by this Court on 27.06.1998. It is submitted that the notification under Section 10(1) was published in A.P. Gazette No.168 dt.07.07.2001 calling for objections from the interested persons and since no objections were received, a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 19.01.2007 asking the father of the 3rd respondent to surrender the surplus land. As the declarant failed to surrender the said land, proceedings under Section 10(6) was issued authorizing the Enquiry Officer to take possession of the said land as per the Sub-Divisional records prepared by the office of the ULC and the Enquiry Officer has taken possession of the land by conducting Panchanama on 11.03.2008, from which date, the land is claimed to be in possession of the W.P.No.14062 of 2010 17 Government. It is further submitted that the Assistant Director of Survey Records verified the survey records with reference to the Sub-Divisional records available in the declarant's file and reported that as per Vasul Baki register in the year 1959, the land in Survey No.202 stands in the name of one Vittal Rao Mudaliar. But as per the revised survey, the same were numbered as Survey Nos.207/3/1 and 207/3/2 and the said survey number co-relates to T.S.No.27, Block-F, Ward No.137 in the Town Survey Records and as per the said records, the land stands in the name of Sri S.M.S.Vijayam who is the father of respondent No.3. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner herein has not filed any objections as against the proceedings of the declarant Sri S.M.S.Vijayam. Thus, it is reiterated that the surplus land which was taken over by the office of these respondents from the father of the 3rd respondent fell in Survey No.202 (old) and revised Survey Nos.207/3/1 and 207/3/2 and not the land of the 1st petitioner which is claimed to be in Survey Nos.203 and
204. It is submitted that Survey Nos.203 and 204 were separate and the Writ Petition was filed to knock away the land in Survey No.202.
24. The 4th respondent, i.e., District Collector, Hyderabad District has filed an additional counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 W.P.No.14062 of 2010 18 confirming the averments made in the counter affidavit and further stating that this Court in W.P.No.2992 of 2011 filed by respondent No.3 herein has confirmed that the respondents have taken over possession of the land in Survey No.202 after conducting a survey and demarcating retainable area and surplus vacant land of the declarant. It is submitted that such a decision was rendered on the basis of a sketch dt.11.03.2008 filed by the respondents, i.e., S.O. and C.A. ULC. Therefore, it is submitted that the land in possession of the Government is in Survey No.202 and not in Survey Nos.203 and 204 as alleged by the petitioners.
25. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit denying the specific averments of the respondents that the land in possession of the Government or the land which is sought to be taken over by the Government is the land in Survey Nos.203 and 204, which belongs to the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the petitioners are not challenging or questioning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent passed in respect of the land in Survey No.202 of Lalaguda Village. It is further submitted that the averments of the respondent No.3 that his father was the owner of the land in old Survey No.202, new Survey No.207 correlated to Town Survey No.27, Block-F, Ward No.137 and that the W.P.No.14062 of 2010 19 3rd respondent has inherited the same from his father, are false, incorrect and denied. It is submitted that in the initial survey of Lalaguda Village, there is no Survey No.202, but the said village comprised of Survey Nos.1 to 199 only. It is submitted that the existence of old Survey No.202 did not arise and that the Survey Nos.202 and 207 can only be revised survey numbers. It is further submitted that the land in Survey No.202 is on the South of the main road leading from Tarnaka to Secunderabad, whereas the lands in Survey Nos.203 and 204 are located on the North of the road. It is submitted that respondent No.3 and his brother have made several attempts to claim the land of the petitioners as their land, but have failed as can be seen from the decisions of the Courts in the various petitions filed by them. The petitioners reiterated the averments made in the above paragraphs to contend that the 1st petitioner alone is in possession of the subject land.
26. The Writ Petitioners 2 and 3 have also filed counter affidavit in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 and the averments therein are to be taken as averments in the Writ Petition as well. In the said counter affidavit, it is their claim that the father of the 3rd respondent is owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.202 over an extent of Ac.2,730.82 square metres W.P.No.14062 of 2010 20 of land which has been taken over by the Government as surplus land under the ULC Act.
27. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the entire dispute revolves around the location of the subject land, i.e., whether it is located in Survey No.202 or in Survey Nos.203 & 204 of Lalaguda Village. The very same piece of land is being claimed to be in the possession of the Government after it has been taken over by the Government under the ULC Act from the father of the 3rd respondent, whereas the petitioners are also claiming that their land in Survey Nos.203 and 204 is the subject land. This Court finds that there has been litigation between the petitioners herein and respondent No.3 and his brother with regard to the subject land and the 1st petitioner and his family members have succeeded in the litigation and have been put in possession by the Government after conducting a survey. The petitions filed by the respondent No.3 and his brother for permanent injunction against the petitioners herein have all been dismissed by the Court and therefore, the possession of the writ petitioners over the subject land has been established. The findings in the judgment relied upon by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.2992 of W.P.No.14062 of 2010 21 2011 are not binding on the petitioners herein as they were not made parties to the said litigation. It is the duty of the Government to survey and locate and demarcate the surplus land before taking over possession of the same. As stated by the petitioners, the official respondents have issued warrant of commission for local inspection of the disputed site to the Deputy Collector, Survey and Land Records. In view of the orders of the High Court dt.02.04.1991 passed in Criminal Petition No.334 of 1991, the Special Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No.B/1066/90 dt.22.04.1991 issued warrant of commission directing the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad to conduct survey and to demarcate the disputed land with reference to old tippons and maps and to find out in which survey number the land is situated and to submit report. It is noticed that after survey and demarcation of the land, the land was redelivered to the 1st petitioner under a Panchanama dt.13.06.1991. In the meantime, Respondent No.3 and his brother challenged the order of the High Court dt.02.04.1991 in Criminal Petition No.334 of 1991 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.662 of 1996 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same vide order dt.30.04.1996. It is further seen that the Criminal Petitions No.1518 of 1991 and 1339 of 1991 filed by the 3rd respondent W.P.No.14062 of 2010 22 and his brother before this Court were dismissed by this Court on 27.10.1992 and respondent No.3 and his brother did not move the Supreme Court against the same. The petitioner No.1 is admittedly put in possession on 13.06.1991 and the Land Grabbing Case No.266 of 1995 filed by the 3rd respondent along with his brother was also dismissed on 30.01.2022 by taking note of the fact that the Special Executive Magistrate in the Proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., has delivered possession of the property to the respondents therein and hence, the case did not involve land grabbing.
28. In view of the above, this Court finds that the writ petitioner No.1 and through him the petitioners 2 and 3 have been in legal possession of the subject land even before the LGC was dismissed on 30.01.2002, whereas the ULC notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued in August, 2007. Further, this Court in W.P.No.2992 of 2011, vide order dt.27.08.2016, has recorded the above proceedings while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the 3rd respondent. This Court, however, held that the 3rd respondent herein and the petitioner therein cannot claim relief under the Repeal Act. However, since the writ petitioners before this Court were not parties to W.P.No.2992 of 2011, W.P.No.14062 of 2010 23 the finding therein in respect of the proceedings under the ULC Act cannot be binding on the petitioners herein. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents cannot claim the subject land to be in Survey No.202 of Lalaguda Village and in possession of the 3rd respondent. Since the respondents seem to be interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners over the subject land without any basis, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue NOC to the petitioners herein in respect of the subject land on the basis of the title and possession over the subject land expeditiously.
29. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with the above direction. No order as to costs.
30. In the result,
(i) I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed;
(ii) I.A.No.2 of 2022 is allowed;
(iii) I.A.No.3 of 2022 is dismissed;
(iv) W.P.No.14062 of 2010 is allowed with the above direction.
No order as to costs.
W.P.No.14062 of 2010
24
31. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 08.06.2023 Svv