THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.864 of 2007
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
None has appeared for the appellant, though
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue is present for respondents No.1 and 2.
There is also no representation on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. Appellant as the writ petitioner had filed W.P.No.25286 of 2006 assailing the legality and validity of G.O.Ms.No.1136 of the Revenue (UC-IV) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 10.08.2006, in respect of allotment of land to respondent No.3.
3. Description of land allotted to respondent No.3 is as follows: Plot No.295, a vacant house site of 355 square yards situated in Survey No.200 of Kukatpally Village. 2
4. Learned Single Judge, vide the judgment under appeal dated 06.12.2006, noted that the property in question is subject matter of a civil suit, being O.S.No.47 of 2005, pending on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The said civil suit was filed by the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2003 against the vendor of the appellant. Interestingly, respondent No.3 is defendant No.3 in the above suit. Learned Single Judge perused the plaint and thereafter held as follows:
"This Court has perused the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.47 of 2005. The same is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale allegedly obtained by the petitioner from Smt.Laxmi Prasanna. Unless and until the petitioner succeeds in the suit, at present he cannot be said to have any absolute right, but only inchoate right. Secondly, the third respondent is the third defendant against whom an allegation is made that he is trying to grab the property. In that case, any decree that may be passed by the civil Court for specific enforcement of agreement of sale as against the first defendant therein is also binding on the third defendant if he is allegedly claiming title to the second defendant or claiming title in himself. In that view of the matter, Clause 4(c) of G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, is no bar for issue of the impugned Government Order. Further a reading of 3 Clause 4(c) of G.O.Ms.No.455 would show that for regularization in respect of excess lands covered by Writ Petitions, Suits, Land Grabbing cases pending before the Courts shall have to be considered only after they are finally disposed of or they are withdrawn by the parties. The pendency of the specific performance of suit by the petitioner does not come within the categories of cases."
5. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge.
6. However, as there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, we dismiss the writ appeal for non- prosecution.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 12.10.2022 vs