Telangana High Court
B.Lingam Goud Died Per Lrs P 2 To6 vs The Special Court Under And Another on 9 June, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dt.27.12.2005 passed in L.G.C.No.61 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') at Hyderabad, as being contrary to the evidence on record and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, with a consequently direction to quash the said judgment.
2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs.D.Madhavi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record.
3. The 1st petitioner herein is the respondent before the Special Court in L.G.C.No.61 of 2022, filed by the respondent herein as applicant. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the 1st petitioner, who died pending writ petition, on 08.09.2015.
4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the order of the Special Court is contrary to weight of evidence inasmuch as the Special 2 Court did not consider that the land being claimed by the 1st petitioner herein to an extent of 660 square yards in Sy.No.269 of Shapurnagar, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, has been wrongly held as part of Hindustan Machine Tools Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited (HMTECHS) bearing Plot No.18 admeasuring 300 square yards allotted in favour of the 2nd respondent herein and the same having been grabbed by the 1st petitioner and thus, declaring the 1st petitioner as a 'land grabber'.
5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the 1st petitioner has purchased land admeasuring 660 square yards from one K.Satyanarayana initially under oral agreement of sale dt.15.10.1975. followed by written agreement of sale dt.12.10.1976 in respect of land in Sy.No.269, Shapurnagar, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District; that the aforesaid extent of land purchased by him forms part of a large extent of land of Acs.39.35 guntas belonging to Mrs.Khurshid Shapur Shenoy and others who in turn had entered into an agreement to sell the same to K.Satyanarayana, vide agreement of sale dt.22.06.1974; and that the said Satyanarayana had entered into an agreement of sale with HMTECHS to an extent of Acs.37.14 guntas, thereby retaining land to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas for himself.
3
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that K.Satyanarayana from out of the land retained by him which has been agreed to be sold to him by Mrs.Shenoy and others, had sold part of the subject land claimed by the 2nd respondent herein as forming part of layout of HMTECHS and the said part of land to an extent of 300 yards having been sold in his favour under a registered sale deed by HMTECHS.
7. It is further contended by the petitioners that on K.Satyanarayana entered into an agreement with the 1st petitioner to sell the land to an extent of 660 square yards from and out of the total extent of land belonging to Mrs.Shenoy and others in Sy.Nos.269, 270 and 271 to an extent of Acs.39.35 guntas; that the said K.Satyanarayana thereafter entered into an agreement with HMTECHS agreeing to sell the land to an extent of Acs.37.14 guntas; that however, a sale deed was executed on 20.09.1975 in favour of HMTECHS only to an extent of Acs.20.00 guntas after ULC authorities granted permission only to the said extent; that no sale deed was executed for the remaining extent of Acs.17.14 guntas agreed to be sold to HMTECHS as neither sale deed was executed nor possession was delivered to the said society.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the sale deed is executed in favour of HMTECHS is only to an extent of 4 Acs.20.00 guntas, the said society had obtained layout for the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.37.41 guntas which was agreed to be sold to them by K.Satyanarayana under an agreement of sale dt.21.11.1974 and out of the said layout, the 2nd respondent is claiming to have been allotted plot bearing No.18 admeasuring 300 square yards and the said plot having been registered in his favour, under a registered sale deed dt.08.06.1979.
9. The petitioners further contend that on the 2nd respondent interfering with the possession of the 1st petitioner over the land admeasuring 666 square yards, he had approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction and filed a suit, vide O.S.No.458 of 1983 seeking injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering; that on the Trial Court not granting injunction, the 1st petitioner had filed an appeal thereagainst, vide A.S.No.16 of 1994 on the file of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the order of the Trial Court in refusing to grant injunction was set aside and an order of injunction was granted restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with his possession.
10. The petitioners further contended that the aforesaid order in A.S.No.16 of 1994 has been assailed by the 2nd respondent herein by filing a second appeal, vide S.A.No.630 of 1995 and this Court by order 5 dt.22.07.1996 by dismissing the S.A. affirmed the order in A.S.No.16 of 1994 and thus, the 2nd respondent herein is injuncted from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land.
11. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that since, this Court in the second appeal having recorded a finding with regard to the title of the 1st petitioner over the subject land, the finding of the Special Court of the 1st petitioner having resorted to land grabbing of the 2nd respondent's land bearing Plot No.18 admeasuring 300 square yards and declaring the 1st petitioner as 'land grabber', cannot be sustained, apart from the said order being perverse.
12. On behalf of the petitioners, it is further contended that this Court in second appeal, vide S.A.No.630 of 1995 dt.22.07.1996, while affirming the perpetual injunction granted by the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.16 of 1994 dt.27.10.1995, preferred against the order and decree in O.S.No.458 of 1983 dt.13.04.1994 had noted that the finding of the lower Appellate Court based on some evidence on record is binding in the second appeal and it has to be accepted, and as such, the Special Court could not have ignored the said finding of the High Court, while holding that the principle of res judicata does not apply in a title suit is a perverse finding, and thus, the order of the Special Court has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioners. 6
13. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that since, the Appellate Court in A.S.No.16 of 1994 by considering the evidence adduced before the Trial Court having noted that the 1st petitioner was put in possession of the land to an extent of 666 square yards by K.Satyanarayana, from and out of the land retained by him to an extent of Acs.2.21 guntas, the claim of the 2nd respondent of the subject Plot No.18 land as forming part of layout obtained by HMTECHS cannot be accepted and thus, the order of the Special Court declaring the 1st petitioner as land grabber having grabbed land of the 2nd respondent to an extent of 300 square yards bearing Plot No.18 in Sy.No.269 cannot be sustained and is thus liable to be set aside.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the said respondent was a member of HMTECHS and was initially allotted a plot by the society vide Allotment Certificate, dt.14.04.1976(Ex.A15) under the signature of the 1st petitioner himself and thereafter the HMTECHS had executed a registered sale deed, dt.08.06.1979(Ex.A16) in his favour.
15. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further stated that pursuant to the allotment letter issued, he was put in possession of the subject property having paid the entire consideration reserved 7 thereunder and a formal conveyance deed has been registered thereafter in his favour on 18.06.1979.
16. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is also contended that by issuing allotment certificate, the 2nd respondent was put in possession and was permitted to undertake construction by obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and the letter of allotment certificate as well as the sale deed executed in his favour by HMTECHS clearly identifies the plot allotted to him with its boundaries, noted as North - plot No.19, South - 25 feet wide road, East - road leading to Shapurnagar Village, and West - Plot No.16.
17. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that since, the 1st petitioner, who was the President of HMTECHS had indulged in the activities of misappropriation, he was removed from the presidentship of the Society and taking advantage of the position he enjoyed at the time when the HMTECHS had entered into agreement with K.Satyanarayana for purchase of land to an extent of Acres 37.14 guntas in favour of the Society, the 1st petitioner got created the written agreement of sale, dt.12.10.1976, in his favour on the basis of which is laying claim to the plot of land of the 2nd respondent along with another plot bearing No.26 as having been agreed to be sold to 8 him and he being put in possession of the said land by the said K.Satyanarayana.
18. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is also contended that if only the petitioner had purchased the subject land allotted in favour of the petitioner as plot No.18 under letter of Allotment Certificate, dt.14.04.1976, issued under his signature, the 1st petitioner ought to have shown the said plot of land as being situated at another location, instead the 1st petitioner is claiming that the layout on the basis of which plot of land is allotted to the 2nd respondent is only a draft layout, which has undergone change subsequently.
19. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that a registered sale deed dt.08.06.1979 having been executed in his favour by HMTECHS based on the allotment certificate issued on 14.04.1976, the claim of the 1st petitioner on the basis of the agreement of sale cannot stand scrutiny of this Court.
20. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that on the 1st petitioner claiming to have purchased land admeasuring 666 sq. yards from K.Satyanarayana and laying claim to the 2nd respondent's plot and adjoining plot bearing No.26, which is shown as boundary of the 2nd respondent's plot to the west side, the owner of the said plot 9 had approached the Special Court and filed a Land Grabbing Case vide LGC.No.184 of 1999, wherein the Special Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to cause verification of the subject plot of land allotted and alleged to be grabbed by the 1st petitioner; and that the Advocate Commissioner by his report, dt.26.02.2001, submitted to the Special Court had stated that the application schedule plot No.26 was bounded by road on North & west, on East - plot No.18 and on South - plot No.25, and in the application schedule land there were 15 pits dug for the purpose of raising pillars.
21. By noting as above, the Advocate Commissioner in his report stated that the application schedule plot bearing No.26 falls within the land allotted to HMTECHS and a sketch was also prepared by the Assistant Director showing the survey Nos.269, 270 and 271 of Quthbullapur Village, and the application schedule land bearing plot No.26 was shown in green colour in the sketch and the area retained by the vendor of the respondent is shown in orange colour in the sketch.
22. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is contended that the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in LGC.No.184/1999 clearly shows that boundary of plot No.26 on East is plot No.18, which plot is shown as west boundary of plot No.18.
10
23. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that the Special Court taking note of the fact that the suit filed by the 1st petitioner herein vide O.S.No.458/1983 is only for grant of perpetual injunction, had observed that the findings recorded therein cannot operate as res judicata, while adjudicating the title suit and since, the 2nd respondent had prima facie proved his title to the subject plot i.e., plot No.18 on the basis of the allotment certificate(Ex.A15) followed by registered sale deed(Ex.A16), had rightly held that the claim of res judicata would not be applicable.
24. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that the sketch map prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, filed along with Advocate Commissioner's report in LGC.No.184/1999 clearly shows the location of plot No.26, which is abutting to plot No.18 allotted in favour of the 2nd respondent herein and also demarcates the land of Acres 2.21 guntas being claimed by the petitioner as left over land belonging to K.Satyanarayana, out of which the land to an extent of 666 sq. yards having been agreed for being sold in favour of the 1st petitioner.
25. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that the Special Court had noted that the allotment certificate issued in favour of the 2nd respondent under the signature of the 1st petitioner himself 11 records that the member is at liberty to proceed with the construction of the house if he so chooses and the registration of plot in his favour will be done along with other registrations, had held that the postponement of registration after issuing allotment certificate is only to register the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent along with registrations in favour of other allottees.
26. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is also contended that written agreement of sale stated to have been executed by K.Satyanarayana in favour of the petitioner agreeing to sell land admeasuring 666 sq. yards, as filed into the Court by the 1st petitioner in OS.No.485/1983, and does not record any specific boundaries of the said extent of land and on the other hand it mentions as on East - old road leading Hyderabad to Narsapur , West - proposed road of 25 feet, North - neighbours land, Sought - land of YR Patel, as per rough sketch of land annexed to it.
27. The 2nd respondent further contends that the 1st petitioner taking advantage of mentioning of east boundary as road leading from Hyderabad to Narsapur and west as proposed road of 25 feet had grabbed the land of the 2nd respondent bearing plot No.18 as well as the neighbouring plot on its west claiming the said extents of land as having been sold by K.Satyanarayana under agreement of sale 12 dt.12.10.1976, by which time already a layout was approved in favour of HMTECHS and that the boundaries of land being claimed by the 1st petitioner under the aforesaid agreement of sale do not match with the boundaries of the plot sold in favour of the 2nd respondent, and thus, the petitioner without any valid title and entitlement had grabbed the plot of land of the 2nd respondent herein and thus, the Special Court had rightly declared the petitioner as land grabber in terms of the provisions of the Act.
28. On behalf of the 2nd respondent it is further contended that the legal heirs of owner of plot No.26, which is abutting on the west to the 2nd respondent's plot, namely Atchaiah, have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of plot No.26 from the legal heirs of the 1st petitioner herein vide O.S.No.935/2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, and the same was decreed in favour of the legal heirs of the owner of plot No.26 namely Atchaiah, by judgment and decree, dt.23.09.2024, and thus, the claim of the 1st petitioner of he being the owner of the land to an extent of 666 sq. yards, which includes the land of the 2nd respondent to an extent of 300 sq. yards stand falsified, and thus, the 1st petitioner cannot claim that the Special Court without considering/appreciating the documents in correct perspective having 13 held the 1st petitioner as land grabber or for that matter the order of the special Court either being erroneous or perverse. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
29. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Sm t. Y.Am ruthabai, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and Anr. vs. The Spl. Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Proh. Act and Ors. 1 .
30. The Special Court by considering the claims of the 2nd respondent/applicant as well as the 1st petitioner herein as respondent had framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property?
2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondent is true, valid and binding on the applicant?
3. Whether the judgment rendered in O.S.No.458/1983 as confirmed in AS.No.16/1994 and SA.No.630/1995 on the file of the High Court operates as 'Res-judicata' in this proceedings?
4. Whether the respondent is a land grabber within the meaning of Act XII of 1982?
5. To what relief?1
Order dt.28.09.2022 in W.P.No.3320 of 2006 14
31. The Special Court by framing the aforesaid issues and by scanning the evidence adduced on behalf of the respective parties, had held that the 2nd respondent herein is the owner of the application schedule property and that the 1st petitioner herein had failed to place rebuttal evidence to establish the rival title set up by him.
32. The Special Court, by recording its findings as above held that the 1st petitioner is to be declared as land grabber within the meaning of the Act while the 2nd respondent/applicant is the owner of the application schedule land, and thus, the 1st petitioner is liable for eviction.
33. We have taken note of the respective submissions made.
34. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioners are claiming the land under an agreement of sale, dt.12.10.1976, stated to have been executed by one K.Satyanarayana in furtherance of the oral agreement entered into on 15.10.1975, whereby the land to an extent of 666 sq. yards out of Acres 2.21 guntas was agreed to be sold in favour of the 1st petitioner and the 1st petitioner having paid the entire sale consideration thereunder.
35. However, it is to be noted that the 1st petitioner's vendor Sri K.Satyanarayana, himself is an agreement holder from Smt Kurshid 15 Shapur Shenoy, whereby he has agreed to purchase land to an extent of Acres 39.35 guntas.
36. No document has been placed before the Special Court whereby the entire extent of land agreed to be sold in favour of K.Satyanarayana by Mrs.Kurshid Shapur Shenoy and others under agreement dt.22.05.1974, having been conveyed.
37. On the other hand based on the aforesaid agreement of sale entered into by K.Satyanarayana with Mrs.Kurshid Shapur Shenoy and others, K.Satyanarayana had in turn had entered into an agreement of sale with HMTECHS to sell land to an extent of acres 37.14 guntas and thereafter a registered sale deed having been executed only to an extent of Acres 20.00 guntas.
38. The Special Court in its order had categorically recorded the above factual position.
39. The Special Court further noted that on registering the sale deed in respect of land to an extent of Acres 20.00 guntas in favour of HMTECHS, the said society had obtained lay out plan in respect of Acres 37.14 guntas of land from Grampanchayath, and the 2nd respondent herein was allotted plot No.18, initially under allotment certificate, dt.14.04.1976, issued by the Society, marked as Ex.A15, 16 and thereafter a registered sale deed being executed on 08.06.1979 marked as Ex.A16.
40. The Special Court noting as above had held that the 2nd respondent, who had filed the subject application on the basis of which the LGC.No.61 of 2002 is registered had discharged the initial burden cast on him in terms of Section 10 of the Act and it is for the 1st petitioner/respondent to prove that he has not grabbed the aforesaid land.
41. The Special Court further noted that the 1st petitioner had laid his claim to the subject land under an agreement of sale stated to have been executed by an agreement holder, who himself does not have any valid title to the subject land for the 1st petitioner to claim of he having any title to the same.
42. Though on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the 1st petitioner was put in possession of the subject land by his vendor on executing the agreement of sale, dt.12.10.1976, and he having paid the entire consideration, it is pertinent to note that the Special Court had also taken note of the fact that if only the 1st petitioner had paid entire consideration, there no need for entering into agreement of sale rather than a sale deed itself.
17
43. It is to be noted that one cannot claim title to the subject property on the basis of an agreement of sale, as it is only an agreement to sell, which transaction is yet to take place, the claim made thereunder cannot stand scrutiny of the Court.
44. Further, Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates that in respect of immovable property, registration is compulsory and in the absence of registration, the document, under which claim is being made, can only be considered as giving a right to the person claiming thereunder and not valid title in his favour[See Sanjay Sharm a v. K otak M ahindra Bank Ltd. and Others 2 ].
45. Though before us, it has been sought to be contended on behalf of the 1st petitioner that the subject land forms part of the left out land of K.Satyanarayana to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas out of Acres 39.35 guntas agreed to be purchased from him by Mrs.Kurshid Shapur Shenoy and others, the Advocate Commissioner report filed along with the sketch prepared by the Additional Director clearly goes to show that the extent of left over land of Acres 2.21 guntas is located elsewhere and the subject land being claimed by the petitioner is not even within the close proximity of the left over land for the 1st 2 2024 SCC Online SC 4589 18 petitioner to claim that the subject land is agreed to be sold to him under agreement of sale.
46. As noted herein above, K.Satyanarayana himself is an agreement holder and it is settled position of law that an agreement holder cannot enter into an agreement, on the basis of which the petitioner can claim of he having been delivered passion of land of 666 sq. yards in survey No.269 and thereby having valid title and entitlement thereto and the Special Court having erroneously declaring him as land grabber.
47. Further this Court also cannot ignore the fact of the 1st petitioner having lost his claim to the part of the land being claimed by him in the suit filed by the legal heirs of late Achaiah vide O.S.No.935/2016, under judgment and decree, dt.23.09.2004, to contend that the order of the Special Court is by excluding to consider the relevant material and considering irrelevant material and thereby being perverse, for this Court to interfere.
48. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of the Special Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or perversity for being interfered by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
19
49. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
50. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed in the light of this final order.
__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 09th June, 2025.
________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J gj/gra 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) Dt.09.06.2025 GJ/GRA