Telangana High Court
M/S. Vasudeva Realtors Pvt Limited vs The Southern Power Distribution ... on 12 March, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 15253 OF 2023
ORDER:
Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of Respondents 1 to 4 in transferring service connections on the 5th respondent name and threatening to disconnect power supply of petitioner's LT Service Connections No.(1):
5102700065 (Domestic) (2): 5102700066, (3) 5102700053, (4):
5102700057, (5): 5102700076, (6): 5102700052, (7):5102700055, (8):5102700075, (9):5102700076 Solipet Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ibrahimbagh, Hyderabad on the request made by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the directions issued in I.A. No. 678 of 2021 in O.S.No. 105 of 2021(O.S.No. 840 of 2022). A consequent direction is sought to Respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the transfer of service connections on the name of the 5th respondent and not to disconnect petitioner's power supply vide LT Service numbers stated supra.
2. It is stated that petitioner company has been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24.04.2003 with an objective to do real estate business lawfully. Petitioner company successfully completed construction of villas and 2 Apartments and also received an Award for its honest and successful completion of ventures /projects.
It is stated that Respondents 6 and 7 were owners and possessors of agricultural land in Survey Nos.302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 308, and 310 admeasuring Acs.42.22 guntas situated at Solipet Village. In March, 2005, petitioner agreed to purchase the land for a total consideration of Rs.1,17,12,050/-. Respondents 6 and 7 entered into an oral agreement of sale with petitioner, who paid Rs.32,00,000/- to Respondents 5 to 7 on 06.03.2005 as advance. At that time, the 6th respondent informed petitioner that property agreed to be sold was under mortgage with Prudential Bank Limited and assured petitioner that he would execute proper registered sale deed as and when property gets clear title and unencumbered. Thereupon, on the request of the respondents, petitioner further paid an amount of Rs 32,00,000/- on 19.05.2005 by way of cash and Respondents 6 and 7 acknowledged receipt of the amount in the document executed on the even date. The said document is an agreement of sale-cum-receipt, though titled as "Receipt".
It is stated that Respondents 6 and 7 received total amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- and physical possession was delivered to petitioner though not registered. Since 19.05.2005, 3 petitioner was in continuous possession of the said property without interruption from any corner; they raised two buildings and cattle shed by incurring an amount of 15 lakhs; got dug two bore wells and raised several crops. Petitioner has taken possession along with power supply connection for domestic and agriculture which are on the name of Simhadri Foundry and Simhadri Foam and it was informed that service connection are on their vendors name, they have not transferred on their name.
It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector Shahbad visited the suit land on 27.12.2005 and enquired with regard to possession of petitioner and reported the same to the Tahsildar, who, in turn, issued proceedings for recording the name of petitioner in possessory column of Pahani vide file No:
B/1583/2005 and since then, the name of petitioner has been continued as possessor of the suit land as cultivator in revenue records in respect of the said land and pattadar pass books were also issued in their favour.
While the matter stood thus, Respondents 5 to 7 in collusion with each other with a view to grab the said agricultural property, got registered the settlement deeds in favour of the 5th respondent. The petitioner has always been ready and willing to perform its part of agreement of sale from 4 19.05.2005 on which date agreement of sale cum receipt has been executed. The existence of building and other crops even though they are physically situated in the property are not mentioned in the settlement Deeds in favour of the 5th respondent. According to petitioner, the said sale deeds are vitiated by fraud and collusion and they got knowledge about settlement deeds executed when Respondents 5 to 7 issued reply notice to their notice. Hence there was transfer of neither right nor possession, as such transactions were vitiated by fraud, even if they were presumed to have been executed by R 6 and R 7. It is stated that the 5th respondent, who is rich and influential is a chronic litigant and she formulated an evil scheme to grab the property by hook or crook, therefore, the said settlement deeds and recitals therein being manifestly false and did not confer any right and there was no transfer of interest endorsed between Respondents 5 to 7 insofar as settlement deeds are concerned. Unfortunately the manager of petitioner executed registered sale deeds in favour of the third parties without knowledge of the petitioner.
It is stated that having come to know all these facts, petitioner filed O.S. No. 105 of 2021 (OS.No. 840 of 2022) and on 02.11.2021 obtained interim injunction restraining Respondents 5 to 7 and subsequent purchasers from alienating 5 or creating a third-party interest over the said property till further orders. Then, the 5th respondent made an Application before Respondents 1 to 4 to transfer electrical connections on her name suppressing all the facts. When the authorities came for site inspection and declined the transfer of name, the 5th respondent filed Writ Petition No. 24519 of 2021 which was disposed of on 08.11.2022 with a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 to consider the documents submitted by her and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have made representation on 12.05.2023 and brought all the facts to their notice along with relevant enclosures. Taking advantage of this order, the 5th respondent pressurised and forced Respondents 1 to 4 to transfer the service connections on her name and ultimately, got it transferred. Now with an evil intention to dispossess petitioner and to establish her possession over the property, she made an Application to Respondents 3 and 4 to disconnect power supply to the existing service numbers as these service numbers got transferred on her name. Now basing on the 5th respondent's request, Respondents 1 to 4 are threatening to disconnect the existing power supply to defeat the right of petitioner. If the existing service numbers are disconnected, entire crops will be damaged and petitioner will 6 incur huge loss. Unless and until this Court directs the respondents not to disconnect power supply to the existing service connections, the respondents will not stop their threats. Therefore, petitioner is constrained to file present Writ Petition.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent stating that originally, Respondents 6 and 7 are absolute owners and possessors of subject agriculture land who executed registered settlement deeds in her favour, as such she became absolute owner and possessor of the above land. It is stated that from the date of settlement deed, this respondent is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and her name was also mutated in revenue records and Dharani Web Portal and she is getting Rythu Bandhu. The claim of this respondent is that petitioners, managing the VROs., obtained Pahani vide file No: P/1583/2005, hence, she made complaint to police. It is pertinent to note that Economic Offence Wing (EOW) authority of investigators following investigation in Cr.No: 333 of 2020 of P.S-Shabad/EOW-CCS, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, arrested two former village revenue officers of Solipeta village in Shabad Mandal namely B. Anjaiah and N. Narasimulu and produced them before the Court at Chevella. According to investigation, the said VROs colluded with petitioner, tampered the original official village revenue records of Pattadaaruni 7 pahanies from 2003, and prepared the false certified copies of revenue adangal/pahani for 2004-05; 2005-06; 2006-07; 2007- 08, 2008-09; 2009-10; 2010-11; 2011-12, 2015-16, in relation to land of an extent of Ac. 42.22 Gts in Sy.No(s): 302 to 308 & 310 of Solipet Village, Shabad mandal.
It is stated that petitioner company claiming property on the basis of alleged receipt dated 19.05.2005 and the one issued by the 6th respondent on 06.03.2005 which are false and fabricated. In fact, the 6th respondent filed Crime No:
68 of 2021, dated 29.01.2021 on the file of P.S. Jubilee Hills, wherein charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(b), r/w 34 IPC, before the Hon'ble XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, vide C.C.No: 4659 of 2023. As per the report of the Forensic Laboratory signatures contained in document dated 19.05.2005 are false and fabricated. Petitioner Company with an intention to grab the valuable property created above false and fabricated documents and also revenue records.
It is stated that petitioner allegedly purchased the property by way of unregistered sale deed and the same was allegedly regularized vide 13-B certificate vide file No:
B/3514/2016 is not correct, in fact the Tahsil office, Shabad Mandal, issued letter vide Lr.No. B/105/2021, dated 8 20.09.2022, stating that File No: B/3514/2016, dated 22.06.2016 was recorded blank in DR register of this office and no file found in the records available in this office moreover as per G.O.Ms.No: 153, dated 03.06.2016 certain Mandals which are falling in HMDA limits are prohibited from entertaining applications under Sadabainama. This mandal is also falling in the Ban area. As such it is falling in Ban area entertainment of such application does not arise. Hence it is to conform that the said proceeding were not issued from this office." The alleged regularization of land vide file No: B/3514/2016 is not correct.
Hence, the claim of the petitioner is prima-facie based on forged and fabricated documents.
This respondent is threatening to disconnect power supply contrary to the orders of Hon'ble lower court passed in IA.No: 678 of 2021 in O.S.No: 105 of 2021 (O.S.No: 840 of 2022) is not correct. In fact, the lower Court granted interim directions in favour of petitioner restraining respondents/defendants from alienating or creating third party interest over petition schedule property. This respondents filed vacate stay in the above suit and same is pending adjudication. The power connections stand in the name of Simhadri Foundry and Simhadri Foam. Subsequently the said connections were transferred in favour of this respondent as she was in peaceful possession and 9 enjoyment of the land. As a mater of fact, petitioner was not having any pattedaar passbook or title deeds in their favour and this respondent name was incorporated in Dharani portal and this respondent also getting Rythu Bandhu. The 5th respondent is daughter of the 7th respondent and sister of the 6th respondent, as such, settlement deeds were executed in favour of the 5th respondent. It is stated that the mentioned service connections were in the name of this respondent, hence, she rightly made an Application for disconnection of power supply.
It is stated that petitioner company created false and fabricated documents which was established by the Forensic Laboratories in Crime No: 68/2021, dated 29.0.2021 on the file of Jubilee Hills Police station, Hyderabad and further petitioner company created false and fabricated revenue records as per the letter issued by the Tahsildar in Crime No. 333 of 2020 in favour of P.S Shabad/EOW-CCS, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. In view of the above facts, petitioner does not have any claim or right over land in Survey Nos. 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 310 admeasuring Acs.42-22 guntas situated at Solipet Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Jyothi Eshwar Gogineni, Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. Perused the material on record. The 5th respondent annexed to the counter-affidavit the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 68 of 2021 on the file of P.S. Jubilee Hills, wherein the Hon'ble XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 474, 120(b) read with Section 34 IPC. against petitioner and others. They have also filed report / opinion of the Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratories on examination of documents in Crime No. 68 of 2021 i.e. receipt dated 19.05.2005 containing questioned signature marked as 'Q' and agreement of sale-cum-GPA (7 sheets) containing standard signatures marked as 'S1 to S8'. In the said report, it is noted that the standard signatures marked 'S1 to S8' have been carefully compared with the questioned signature marked 'Q'; there are no fundamental similarities between questioned and standard signatures; the difference in the writing characteristics are significant and sufficient to form a definite opinion and basing on the above observations, it is 11 opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked 'S1 to S8' did not write red enclosed signature marked 'Q'.
6. Further, the letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offence Wing-CCS dated 20.09.2022 discloses that the specified file No. B/3514/2016, dated 22.06.2016 was recorded blank in DR register of this office and no file found in the records available in this office moreover as per G.O.Ms.No. 153, dated 03.06.2016, certain Mandals which are falling in HMDA limits are prohibited from entertaining applications under Sadabainama. This mandal is also falling in the ban area. As such, it is falling in ban area entertainment of such application does not arise. Hence, it is to conform that the said proceedings were not issued from this office.
7. It is also pertinent to note that Economic Offence Wing (EOW) authority of investigators following investigation in Crime No. 333 of 2020 of P.S-Shabad/EOW-CCS, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, arrested two former village revenue officers of Solipeta village in Shabad Mandal namely B. Anjaiah and N. Narasimulu and produced them before the Court at Chevella. According to investigation, the said VROs colluded with petitioner, tampered the original official village revenue 12 records of Pattadaaruni pahanies from 2003, and prepared false certified copies of revenue adangal/pahani for 2004-05; 2005- 06; 2006-07; 2007-08, 2008-09; 2009-10; 2010-11; 2011-12, 2015-16, in relation to land of an extent of Ac. 42.22 Gts in Sy.No(s): 302 to 308 & 310 of Solipet Village, Shabad mandal.
8. In view of the above proceedings, and facts brought out in the counter-affidavit filed by Respondents 3 and 5, it can safely be said that the petitioner failed to prove their possession and agreement of sale said to have been entered with them by the unofficial respondents. Hence, their case does not merit consideration at the hands of this Court. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 12th March 2024 ksld