Edu Shankaraiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2217 Tel

Item No.39



       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

          I.A.No.1 OF 2016 IN/AND W.P.No.17664 OF 2013

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.     None is present on behalf of the petitioner today.


2.     Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel states that he is

appearing for the very same party viz., Edu Shankaraiah, in PIL No.220

of 2105 and that he has expired. This explains the absence of the

petitioner in W.P.No.17664 of 2013.


3.     Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the

respondent No.5/Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District

states that aggrieved by the interim order dated 21.06.2013, I.A.No.1 of

2016 (WVMP.No.690 of 2016) was filed wherein, it has been explained

how the petitioner had tried to misuse the process of law by filing the

captioned writ petition, after having encroached on tank property. He

alludes to the averments made in the vacate stay application wherein, it

has been averred that the writ petitioner was found to have encroached

upon/grabbed tank bed land to an extent of Acs.7.16 guntas in

Sy.No.62/1 in Block-E, Ward No.264, Bandlaguda. The Mandal

Revenue Officer, Charminar Mandal had filed L.G.C.No.25 of 1988

against the petitioner alleging that he is a land grabber and praying for

his eviction. Vide judgment dated 15.12.1997, the Special Court under

the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act had conducted an elaborate

trial and declared the petitioner as a land grabber and had permitted the

revenue authorities to take over possession of the subject land.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner had filed

W.P.No.18345 of 1998. Prior to that, he had also filed W.P.No.27803 of

1997 questioning the orders passed in respect of the compensation

awarded to the Government for illegal occupation of Government land.

Vide order dated 02.07.2001 passed in W.P.No.27803 of 1997, the High

Court had confirmed the orders passed by the Special Court declaring

the petitioner as a land grabber. As regards award of compensation, the

said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Special

Court for fresh determination. Not satisfied by the judgment dated

02.07.2001, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Supreme

Court, registered as SLP.No.16335-16336 of 2001, which was dismissed

with an observation that if he proposed to establish his title, then he

could do so by filing a civil suit.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.543 of 2001 before the

learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying

inter alia for declaration and consequential injunction relating to the

subject land. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide

judgment dated 14.07.2010. Dissatisfied by the said decision, the

Government/respondents No.1 to 5 had filed an appeal, registered as

A.S.No.968 of 2010, which was allowed by the High Court vide

judgment dated 01.11.2013. The operative para of the said judgment

has been extracted in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent No.5.

5. It is stated by Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.5 that the

petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the judgment dated

01.11.2013 that has attained finality. After having exhausted all the

remedies available to him, the petitioner had clandestinely filed

W.P.No.17664 of 2013 by taking advantage of the reduction in the water

level of the tank and had tried to fill the same with gravel and debris.

Thereafter, he had started raising a dispute regarding the boundaries and

the extent of the tank land, with false allegations. He submits that the

petitioner was a tank encroacher and the land in question is a valuable

shikam land that forms a part of the full tank level of the tank and under

the garb of the interim order, he had has tried to change the very nature

of the land by disallowing free flow of water from the catchment area to

the tank.

6. We may note that the present application viz., I.A.No.1 of 2016

was moved by the respondent No.5 in the year 2016 and though the

petitioner was represented throughout, he did not elect to file a reply to

the said vacate stay application. Now, we are informed that the

petitioner has expired. That being the position, nothing further survives

for adjudication in the present writ petition. Even otherwise, having

perused the averments made by the respondent No.5 in the vacate stay

application, we see no justification for continuing the interim order,

which stands vacated. I.A.No.1 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of.

7. The writ petition is dismissed along with the pending applications,

if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 26.07.2021 Lrkm