Telangana High Court
Gopu Naga Mani vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
I.A.Nos. 2 to 4 OF 2023
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 28879 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Court, before dealing with the merits of the
matter, recollects 'Udyoga Parva' in the Epic 'Mahabhartha
5.184' where Lord Krishna suggested Duryodhana to give five
rajyas in favour of Pandavas viz. Paniprasta (Panipat),
Sonaprasta (Sonipat), Indraprastha, Tilprastha (Tilpat), Vyaghra
Prastha (Bagpat). Duryodhana replied 'how can I give the above
villages which are already donated to some other Samantha
Rajas and now they do not belong to me and how can I convey a
title to Pandavas which I have already donated to Samantha
Rajas'. That itself shows 'Nemo dat quod non habet' - no one
can convey a better title than what he himself has. From the
reply of Duryahodhana, it is clear that one who lost his right
over the property cannot entrust the same to other persons.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Smt.
Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala,
learned counsel for proposed party in I.A.No. 2 of 2023, Sri
Manjira Venkatesh, learned counsel for proposed parties in
I.A.No. 3 of 2023 and Sri B. Mohan, learned counsel for
proposed parties in I.A.No. 4 of 2023.
3. The point for consideration is when sale transaction
that took place in favour of petitioner's father way back in 1983
is still alive, without getting the same invalidated by the
competent authority, can the proposed parties claim ownership
over the same based on subsequent sale on 14.07.2013,
17.03.1997 and 30.04.2005?
4. Petitioner claims to have succeeded to open house
Plot No. 700 admeasuring 500 square yards in Survey Nos. 111,
134 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146/A/1, 148, 149, 150, 151,
152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159/A, 161, 162, 165, 166,
171, 178, 179, 180, 183, 181, 189, 190, 191, 181/A situated at
Shankar Hills Layout, Vattinagulapally Village, (Rajendranagar
Taluk) present Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from
her father, who purchased the same from Rajannagari Malla
Reddy and 27 others, through their Regd. Irrevocable G.P.A.
Holder N.Ranga Reddy vide sale deed No. 6014 of 1983 dated
16.08.1983. As many as 3328 plots were sold during 1983 to
1986 in the said layout and all the plot owners formed into an
Association in 1989. When Municipality obstructed
developmental works, petitioner and others filed Writ Petition
No. 18963 of 2023; vide order dated 18.07.2023 obtained a
direction not to obstruct the activities of petitioner and others in
re-fixing the damaged/collapsed layout plot boundary stones in
Shankar Hills Layout. Pursuant to the said direction, petitioner
is looking-after re-fixation of boundary stones in the layout, in
an extent of Acs. 460.06 guntas along with other plot owners. In
that process, she is stated to have made an Application for
electricity connection to the 4th respondent - Southern Power
Distribution Company Limited of Telangana State on
20.09.2023 but the same was rejected on the ground 'it is
disputed land' without assigning any reasons.
5. This Court, vide order dated 16.10.2023, while
issuing notice before admission, directed the respondent -
company to supply electricity connection to petitioner in the
premises or in the property where they are presently staying
and occupying the same.
6. While so, I.A.No. 2 of 2023 has been taken out by
Sri Y. Jaihind Reddy to implead him as the 5th respondent to
the Writ Petition. He claims to be the owner and possessor of
agricultural land admeasuring Acs.146.05 guntas in Survey
Nos. 111, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161,
162 and 190 situated at Vattinagulapalle Village, Gandipet
Mandal by virtue of agreement of sale dated 14.07.2013 and by
judgment and decree dated 14.09.2021 in O.S.No. 54 of 2021
on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy at L.B. Nagar. Husband of writ petitioner along with 99
others claiming to be the owners of the above land, filed A.S.No.
320 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge's
Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. They filed civil suits for title
and declaration and pending adjudication, petitioner without
any right or title or possession made an Application before the
Assistant Engineer for service connection. It is stated that this
proposed respondent submitted representation dated
29.09.2023 to Respondents 2 to 4 requesting them not to issue
any service connection in respect of agricultural lands which are
covered by G.O.Ms.No. 111, MA & UD, dated 08.03.1996. The
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District conducted enquiry and
issued detailed endorsement proceedings, dated 28.04.2022
stating that entire land is covered by bushes, hills and as per
revenue records, said lands are agricultural lands and
individual pattadars' names were reflecting as owners and
several sale transactions have taken place as agricultural lands
through Dharani portal in respect of the subject lands.
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority as also Narsingi
Municipality issued letters dated 07.09.2019 and 25.09.2023
affirming that there is no sanctioned layout in the subject
survey numbers. The claim of this party is writ petitioner
without impleading him with an intention to obtain orders by
suppressing all the above facts and trying to enter into
possession illegally by obtaining electricity connection. In view
of the above circumstances, this proposed party is necessary
and proper to the Writ Petition.
7. Writ petitioner filed counter to the implead petition
stating that proposed respondent viz. Y.Jaihind Reddy filed O.S.
No. 54 of 2021 on 04.02.2021 for specific performance of
agreement of sale dated 11.03.2013 for an extent of Acs. 146.05
guntas for consideration of Rs.1,46,12,500/- and obtained
decree on 14.09.2021 as a result of collusion between the
parties. Against the said decree and the judgment, A.S. Nos. 1
and 5 of 2023 were filed before this Court by some third parties
and Division Bench granted interim direction in I.A. No. 3 of
2023 in Appeal Suit No. 5 of 2023, gist of the order reads as
follows:
" Prima-facie we are satisfied that the appellants herein are
coparceners of the joint family property and they have interest in the aforesaid
suit schedule properties, Therefore, leave as sought for is granted and there
shall be stay of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 2021, dated
14.09.2021 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of this appeal".
Some of the plot owners of Shankar Hills Colony
filed A.S. No. 320 of 2023 against the decree in O.S. No. 54 of
2021 and the same is pending adjudication. The above Appeal
Suit is directed to be listed along with A.S. No. 5 of 2023. Writ
petitioner has not filed any suit for declaration as stated by the
Implead Petitioner. It is stated that she applied for electricity
power connection on 20.09.2023, but the 4th respondent
rejected the same, which is beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.
The proposed respondent made the representation dated
29.09.2023 to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by misrepresenting that
the land mentioned is an agricultural land and he is the owner
of Acs.146.06 guntas. It is stated that subject lay out is not
agricultural land and it is a hillock area and covered by
G.O.Ms.No. 111, MA.& UD., dated 08.03.1996, but the layout
was approved by the Gram Panchayat, Vattinagulapally in 1982
itself. With regard to NALA conversion proceedings, subject
layout was exempted as per the provisions of NALA Act, 1963.
It is stated that some of the plot owners (104) filed
Writ Petition No. 1863 of 2022 to dispose of the representations
dated 02.12.2021 and 10.02.2021 of the plot owners submitted
to the District Collector and this Court, by order dated
17.01.2022, directed the District Collector, to dispose of the said
representations within a period of four (4) weeks. Till then, not
to entertain any sale transactions with respect to the subject
land. The District Collector, without giving notice to petitioners
in the above said Writ Petition, passed order dated 28.04.2023,
with some adverse observations, stating that GPA Holder is not
competent to represent other plot owners. Questioning the said
order, Writ Petition No. 13471 of 2023 was filed and the same is
pending. It is stated that layout was formed much prior to
constitution of HMDA or HUDA. The proposed respondent
stated that Narsingi Municipality issued letter dated 25.09.2023
stating that there is no layout permission accorded but he failed
to prove the same and both the above said authorities are not
competent to furnish such information to one M. Sai Krishna
and P.Anil Reddy. Questioning the above memos / information,
one of the plot owners filed complaints / appeal before the
Telangana State Information Commission, which are pending
adjudication. With the collusion of ex-owners, the proposed
respondent is hectically trying to grab the subject layout land.
He has no locus to question / obstruct petitioner from getting
the electricity power supply connection by making false
representation to the authorities. The presence of the proposed
respondent in adjudicating the present Writ Petition is not
essential and necessary. He is not an interested person to the
Writ Petition.
When the proposed respondent and his henchmen
tried to enter into the layout plots with a mala fide intention to
grab the same with the help of police authorities, some of the
plot owners, out of 3328, filed Writ Petition No. 18782 of 2023,
wherein the proposed respondent is arrayed as Respondent No.7
and this Hon'ble Court by order dated 10.10.2023, directed the
police authorities not to interfere with the civil rights of the
petitioners therein. Some other plot owners filed O.S.No. 535 of
2023, on the file of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge's
Court, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy against the proposed
respondent and others, seeking perpetual injunction and an
interim injunction was granted by order dated 13.10.2023 in
favour of plaintiffs therein and the same is being extended from
time to time and is in force.
8. The proposed respondent stated in his reply to the
counter that not even a single authenticated document was filed
by the writ petitioner before any Court or Authority to show that
the layout relied on by them is approved by due process and
legally valid and that she succeeded the property after the
demise of her father. In fact, her father has not got any valid
right, title, interest and possession over the said plot as GPAs
through which he allegedly purchased the plot is denied by the
original land owners and also the originals of the alleged GPAs
were not produced before any authority.
The proposed respondent is rightful owner and is in
continuous possession since the agreement of sale dated
11.03.2013. With regard to O.S. No.54 of 2021 is concerned,
once execution of Agreement of sale and payment of sale
consideration is admitted by the vendors, nothing further is
required to be proved by the vendee. Basing on admission of
vendors, O.S. No. 54 of 2021 was decreed by the Hon'ble II Addl.
District Judge. The said decree is not a collusive decree. Appeal
Suits A.S. Nos. 1 and 5 were filed by family members of
vendors/ defendants in O.S. No.54 of 2021, claiming that they
are legal heirs / share holders. Their claim is with regard to
agricultural land in which appellant obtained interim stay in the
absence of respondents therein as ex-parte order and challenged
the same by petitioner/ proposed respondent herein it is
pending for adjudication before this court. The writ petitioner
has nothing to do with the said Appeals since the claim of writ
petitioner is that her plot is a residential plot. Admittedly, there
is no residential plot in the entire extent covered in total 33
survey numbers. Insofar as property to an extent of Acs. 146.08
guntas is supported by the judgment and decree. No orders
were granted in A.S. No.320 of 2023 referred to in the said Para.
Insofar as pendency of A.S. No.5 of 2023 is concerned, the claim
of appellants therein is in relation to agricultural land and they
are not supporting the claim of the alleged plot owners of
Shankar Hills Plot Purchasers Association. Writ Petitioner has
no right to seek power supply connection to an unidentified
plot. Moreover, she has no legitimate right whatsoever in the
alleged plot on three aspects (1) there is no approved layout and
the land is agricultural land; (2) there is no such plot existing
physically and (3) she has not filed any document to prove her
ownership or possession over the alleged plot. The department
has rightly rejected the Application of writ Petitioner dated
20.09.2023. The land is an agricultural land and is hillock area
covered by GO Ms.No.111. It is denied that layout is approved
by the Gram Panchayat, Vattinagulapally. Section 3 of
Schedule-I of NALA Act, 1963 pertains to tax leviable on non-
agricultural land and is not in relation to conversion from
agriculture to non-agriculture. In case agricultural land is
converted into non-agriculture purpose, Schedule-I enumerates
assessment of tax to be payable, but no proceedings are relied
upon by writ petitioner under which land has been converted
from agriculture to non-agriculture. In the absence of
conversion proceedings, land is still agricultural land, no layout
is sanctioned by any authority and no residential plots existed
in the subject property.
The District Collector pursuant to the orders of this
Court, passed order dated 28.04.2022 stating that there is no
layout physically and land owners have denied execution of any
GPAs. All the other allegations are hereby denied as false and
incorrect. The information from HMDA and Narsingi
Municipality had also confirmed that there is no approved
layout in the said survey numbers. There are no structure, nor
a small room or any other abode for sanctioning electricity
power supply service connection. Under Section 43 of the
Electricity Act, power supply is to be sanctioned to the person,
who is either owner or occupier of the property. The writ
petitioner is neither owner nor occupier of any piece of land or
dwelling unit and therefore, she has no legitimate right to seek
power supply service connection. All the records show that land
in 33 survey numbers is agriculture land and writ petitioner
along with some land grabbers is trying to grab the land without
any right, title or interest. Since the implead petitioner has got
right, title and interest over the subject land as stated supra for
which writ petitioner is illegally trying to get power supply
service connection, without adding petitioner as respondent,
trying to get orders from this Court by suppressing the facts, as
such, petitioner is proper and necessary party to this Writ
Petition. If writ petitioner get power supply, she may try to
encroach their property and claim as owner and possessor of
the land, thereby depriving legitimate right of the implead
petitioner.
Writ Petition No. 18782 of 2023 was filed by the
alleged plot owners by misrepresentation of facts and trying to
mislead this Court stating as if a specific direction was issued to
police not to interfere with civil rights of petitioners therein. It is
also pertinent to mention here that neither petitioner is a party
to the said Writ Petition nor her alleged plot is subject matter.
Similarly, she is not a party to O.S. No.535 of 2023 nor her
alleged plot is covered under the injunction order, therefore, the
same is not at all relevant and binding.
This Court vide orders dated 22.9.2023 in Writ
Petitions No.9386 of 2007 and 18896 of 2007 had specifically
directed the State Government to effectively implement G.O.
Ms.No.111, dated 08.03.1996 i.e., to protect bio-conservation
zone and eco-system in the area covered under the said G.O.,
therefore no construction activity is permitted in the said 33
survey numbers.
9. Proposed parties in I.A.No. 3 of 2023 seek to
implead them as respondents on the ground that originally, the
subject land was owned by Chukkayyagiri Anantha Reddy,
Golia Bharat Singh, Golia Baldev Singh, Golia Ravichand Singh,
G. Subhash, Mahadev, Moddu Balaiah, M.Venkatesham,
Smt.Nirmala Bai, M. Srisailam, Dargupalli Narasimha,
Dargupalli Gandaiah, Darguipalli Balaram, as per the pahanis.
It is stated that registered partition deed was executed among
the parties on 06.04.2004 and as per partition, second party in
the deed were allotted different lands and the present
proceedings deal with the lands situated in Survey No. 150 to
an extent of Acs.12.03 guntas. The second party to the deed
sold land admeasuring Acs.51.01 in Survey Nos. 148 to 152 to
M/s Pleasant Heights vide registered sale deed dated
30.04.2005. It is stated that M/s Pleasant Heights, being
represented by G.Alfred and 2 others, executed registered sale
deeds in their favour and their names have been mutated in
revenue records and patta pass books were also issued by the
Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendernagar Mandal. It is
stated that they filed O.S. No. 1278 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar,
Hyderabad against M/s Shanker Hills Plot Purchasers' Welfare
Association seeking injunction in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.3.00 guntas each in survey Nos. 150/A/1, 150/A/2 and
150/A/3. In fact, the said Association, stating all the survey
numbers referred to by them, moved recently the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy District for recording their names, which
was rejected vide proceedings dated 28.04.2022. In fact, the
said Association filed Original Suit No.907 of 2006 against
pattadars, which was dismissed. They filed appeal A.S.No.388 of
2013 before the Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending
M/s Shanker Hills Plot Purchasers' Welfare
Association filed O.S.No.35 of 2020 on the file of the VIII
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,
Hyderabad and obtained ex parte injunction, later the same was
got suspended in C.M.A.No.424 of 2020 before this Court. The
suit and the CMA are pending. Association approached various
forums including revenue authorities from time to time and
their claims were rejected. In purification programme, they tried
to get their names incorporated and without notice, order was
passed on 30.12.2012 and they have filed Writ Petition and
obtained suspension of the order. Suppressing all the aforesaid
facts, writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition to grab the land and
by obtaining interim order, they are trying to interfere with their
possession without there being any right, title or possession or
semblance of right over the subject land.
10. Writ Petitioner filed counter to the above
Application stating that some of the vendors (13) of her father,
executed registered partition deed No.3913 of 2004, dated
06.04.2004, partitioned the total extent of land Ac.460.06
guntas, suppressing the fact that the same was sold to 3328
plot owners. The first party (10 persons) to the said partition
deed were allotted Acs.416.18 guntas and the second party (3
persons) were allotted Acs.51.01 guntas. Thereafter, the second
party executed a registered sale deed No.5963 of 2005, dated
30.04.2005 in favour of a partnership firm, namely M/s
Pleasant Heights for an extent of Ac.51.01 gunta in Survey Nos.
148 to 152, Vattinagulapally Village. The proposed respondents
purchased from Pleasant Heights vide registered sale deeds No.
13108, 13109, 13110 and 7175 of 2007. Without there being
any right or title over the schedule land, partitioned by way of
registered partition deed and executed sale deeds one after the
other. The proposed parties have no right or title over the land
of writ petitioner and also on the layout extent. It is stated that
without any notice to possessors and any enquiry prescribed
under ROR Act, the names of proposed parties were recorded.
Questioning the mutation proceedings in favour of 3rd parties,
the plot owners and Shankar Hills Plots Purchasers Welfare
Association, carried the matter to the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy; after thorough enquiry, the then Joint Collector passed
the following order dated 06.01.2004 as under:
" directing the MRO / Tashildar to delete the names of the
Pattadar and enter the name of the Shankar Hills Plots Purchasers
Welfare Association. Any Pattadar passbook and title deed issued, they
stand cancelled. Further the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar is
directed to implement the said order and the same fact may be
intimated to the SRO concerned. Accordingly the division was disposed
off."
The proposed parties by influencing the authorities
with power and money, got the property mutated in their favour,
ignoring the earlier proceedings of the Joint Collector, dated
06.01.2004. It is submitted under Land Records Updation
Project, the revenue authorities conducted enquiry during
15.09.2017 to 26.09.2017; as per announced schedule, enquiry
has been conducted and rectification was made recording
Shankar Hills Plots in possession column against the layout
Survey Nos. 111, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146/Α/1, 148,
149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159/A, 161,
162, 165, 166, 171, 178, 179, 180, 183, 181, 189, 190, 191,
181/A, situated at Vattinagulapally Village, (Rajendra Nagar
Taluk) presently Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The proposed petitioners filed O.S.No.1278 of 2013
on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar against Shankar Hills Plots Purchasers
Welfare Association for permanent injunction but no interim
order was granted and the suit is pending. It is stated that
some of the plot owners (104) filed Writ Petition No. 1863 of
2022 seeking disposal of representations dated 02.12.2021 and
10.02.2021 and this Court, by order dated 17.01.2022, directed
the District Collector to dispose of the representation of the
petitioners in the said Writ Petition within a period of four weeks
and till then, not to entertain any sale transactions with respect
to the subject land. The District Collector, without giving notice
to petitioners in the above said Writ Petition, passed order dated
28.04.2023, with some adverse observations, stating that the
GPA Holder is not competent to represent other plot owners.
Questioning the said order, Writ Petition No. 13471 of 2023 was
filed and the same is pending adjudication. It is true to say that
Association filed O.S.No. 907 of 2006 against ex-owners of land
(28) and vendors of proposed parties and the said suit was
dismissed. The Appeal filed thereagainst was allowed setting
aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,
rejecting the plaint. I.A.No.948 of 2011 shall stand dismissed. It
is, however, directed that trial Court shall return the plaint and
require the plaintiffs to comply with the requirements, such as,
a) showing the names of the individual owners of the plots,
together with the particulars of sale deeds through which, they
have purchased; b) boundaries of the respective plots purchased
by the individual plaintiffs; c) the nature of possession enjoyed
by them over the respective plots, and the nature of interference
from the respondents. The trial Court shall also require the
plaintiffs to remove the second limb of the prayer in the suit,
viz., to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit
schedule property; unless the prayer for declaration of any
rights is included. Pursuant to the above order, names of 1400
plot owners were shown as plaintiffs. The said suit was
withdrawn on 27.06.2017. When the present petitioners and
some others tried to dispossess the plot owners, during Pongal
Vacation of 2020, Shankar Hills Plots Purchasers Welfare
Association filed R&T Petition No. 4 of 2020, wherein, this Court
granted interim injunction on 17.01.2020. She has reiterated
the other averments which were already pleaded in the earlier
counter.
11. I.A. No 4 of 2023 was taken out by M/s Jaihind
Greenfields LLP, represented by Sri Y. Pratap Reddy stating that
this respondent is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural
lands admeasuring Acs. 81.38 guntas in Survey Nos. 178, 179,
180, 183 and 191 having purchased the same under two
registered sale deeds Nos. 7237 of 2002 and 7238 of 2002,
dated 17.03.1997 situated at Vattinagulapally Village, Gandipet
Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently ROR proceedings
were issued by Mandal Revenue Officer (Gandipet) in Proc. No
B/1700/2005 dated 26th June 2005 as per Andhra Pradesh
Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971
(Act 26 of 1971) and Passbooks and Title Deeds bearing Nos.
1252 and 1425 were also issued and the name of petitioner
herein is being reflected in the revenue records from 2006.
It is stated that survey was conducted by the
Mandal Surveyor in file Nos. D/595/2019 and C/874/2019
dated 04.09.2019 and 16.12.2019 respectively in respect of the
lands purchased by M/s Jaihind Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. and the
authority concerned fixed the boundaries. The proposed
petitioner herein also dug borewell pursuant to sanction by the
Ground Water Department vide Letter No.
25/GWD/RRT/Walta/2016, dated 19.08.2019 in respect of the
land in Survey Nos. 178, 179, 180, 183 and 191. TSSPDCL
(Telangana Electricity Department) issued electricity connection
in Survey Nos. 178 (USC. No: 112696942), 179 (USC. No:
112696943), 180 (USC. No: 112696941), 183 (USC. No:
112696945) and 191 (USC, No: 112696944) and bills are being
paid from 01.04.2010. Petitioner herein is in continuous
possession and enjoyment of subject property and the third
parties who purchased part of the land from petitioner herein
are also continuing their peaceful possession and enjoyment.
Writ petitioners without any right or title in respect of subject
agricultural lands with a view to grab the land of petitioner are
filing frivolous cases without impleading petitioner herein.
According to him, some rank strangers claiming to be members
of Shankar Hills Plot Owners Association including writ
petitioner filed O.S.No. 35 of 2020 and obtained ex parte interim
injunction order and the said order was suspended by this
Court in CMA No.424 of 2020 and the said CMA is pending.
They have also filed false suits before Hon'ble District Judge and
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B Nagar, vide 672, 530,
531, 527, 496, 595, 533, 393, 475 and 482 of 2023 and no
interim orders were granted therein, however, writ petitioner
without any right or title or possession made an Application
before the Assistant Engineer-operations, Narsingi, TSSPDCL,
the 4th respondent herein for service connection. He therefore,
submitted representations dated 25.10.2023 to Respondents 2
to 4 informing about the pending disputes and requested them
not to issue any service connection in respect of agricultural
lands situated in the above said survey numbers. The above
said lands are agricultural lands covered by G.O.Ms No. 111,
MA & UD, dated 08.03.1996, which is a Bio-conversation zone
and no layouts are sanctioned in the above said lands and also
there are no NALA conversion proceedings till now in the above
said lands. He pleaded the averments as was done in I.A.No. 2
of 2023.
12. Writ petitioner filed counter almost on similar lines
as in the above Applications. It is stated, proposed respondent
namely M/s Jaihind Greenfields LLP., (Formerly known as
M/s.Jaihind Greenfields Pvt.Ltd.,) Rep.by its Director Y.Pratap
Reddy is not a necessary and interested party to this Writ
Petition. Sri Jaihind Reddy, who is the Managing Director of
petitioner herein / proposed respondent, who is also Implead
Petitioner in I.A. No. 2 of 2023, filed O.S. No. 54 of 2021, on the
file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar,
against 10 members, who were executants of the above referred
sale deeds, for specific performance of the agreement of sale
dated 11.03.2013 for an extent of Ac. 146.05 guntas for
consideration of Rs.1,46,12,500/-. The said suit was filed on
04.02.2021 and it was decreed on 14.09.2021, which decree is a
result of collusion between the parties. Against the said decree
and the judgment, an Appeal filed in A.S. Nos. 1 and 5 of 2023,
before this Hon'ble Court by some third parties and Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant
interim direction in L.A. No. 3 of 2023 in Appeal Suit No. 5 of
2023. The proposed respondent is not the absolute owner and
possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.81.38 guntas in Sy. Nos.
178, 179, 180, 183 and 191 under two Regd. Sale Deed Doct.
Nos. 7237 and 7328 of 2002, dated 25.08.2002. The sale deeds
were brought into existence with the collusion of some of the
original owners / vendors of writ petitioner. Under the guise of
fraudulent and sham sale deeds, the proposed respondent
incorporated its name in the revenue records and obtained
pattadar passbooks without notice to the absolute owners and
possessors/plot owners. It is submitted that entries in the
revenue records do not confer any right or title over the subject
layout land. It is false to state that bore-well was dug by
implead petitioner; in fact, it was dug by Shankar Plots
Purchases Welfare Association in 1992 and since then it is
under the use of the said Association. The alleged proceedings
of the Mandal Surveyor, dated 04.09.2019 and 16.12.2019 as
well as letter dated 19.09.2019 of the Ground Water
Department are fabricated documents with the active collusion
of officials concerned. It is further stated that the implead
Petitioner stated that they have obtained electricity connection
and paying the bills from 01.04.2010 is utter false; without
there being any electricity meters physically, how payments
were made is best known to implead petitioner as well as
electricity department, since 2010. The proposed respondent is
trying to grab the layout plots by engaging anti-social elements
and goons on different occasions. The proposed Respondent has
no locus-standi to question / obstruct the Writ Petitioner from
getting the electricity power supply connection by making false
representation to the authorities. The presence of the proposed
Respondent in adjudicating the present Writ Petition is not
required. The implead Petitioner/proposed Respondent is not an
interested and proper party to the Writ Petition and has no
manner of right to obstruct the legitimate right of the Writ
Petitioner in getting the electricity connection. The implead
petitioner / company, suppressing the facts executed hundreds
of sale deeds in Dharani Portal for small extents by showing an
agricultural land and cheated the public also, which shows that
proposed respondent has not approached this Court with clean
hands. On this ground alone, I.A. No. 4 of 2023 is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Proposed petitioner filed the reply stating that there
was not even a single authenticated document filed by writ
petitioner before any Court or Authority to show that Layout
relied upon by them is approved by due process and legally
valid. She did not also file any legally-valid document to show
her succession to the property after demise of her father. In fact,
her father has not got any valid right, title, interest and
possession over the said plot as GPAs. through which he
allegedly purchased the plot, is denied by the original land
owners and also the originals of the alleged GPAs. were not
produced before any authority and also for the reason that there
is no approved layout and demarcation of plot physically and
writ petitioner or her father were never in possession of the
subject plot. In relation to O.S. No.54 of 2021 is concerned,
once execution of Agreement of sale and payment of sale
consideration is admitted by the vendors, nothing further is
required to be proved by the vendee. Basing on the admission of
vendors, O.S. No. 54 of 2021 was decreed by the II Addl. District
Judge, on a petition filed by the said Sri Y. Jaihind Reddy under
Order 12 Rule-6 CPC. The said decree is not a collusive decree.
He also reiterated the averments in the reply filed to I.A.Nos. 2
and 3 of 2024.
14. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondents
2 to 4 TSSPDCL stating that developer of the layout has to
create required infrastructure; such as allotting land for 33 KV
sub-station, erection of poles, stringing of lines and also
erecting the required distribution transformers at their own
cost. In the present case, no such infrastructure is created. The
Development infrastructure has to be completed by engaging a
approved/licensed Electrical contractor, after creating the
required infrastructure shall certify that the said infrastructure
can be utilized to provide power supply to the Residents of the
colony.
It is stated that applicants have to file approved
layout issued by the competent authority which is required to
plan Developmental Electrical infrastructure but, no such
approved layout is furnished by the applicants. The approved
layout also is required to identify the location of the plot of the
applicants. There is no proper layout and roads are not properly
formed. It is stated that applicants have to furnish a certificate
issued by the Welfare Society stating that they have no objection
for respondent company in providing new service connection to
the applicant. They also have to furnish copy of the building
permission and an affidavit stating that there are no court cases
pending in which there are stay orders prohibiting development
of layout or providing eelectricity connection. It is submitted
that once the above-referred documents are furnished, the
officials will inspect the site to verify the required infrastructure
and then initiate appropriate steps to release service connection.
It is once again reiterated that as the layout consists of large
number of plots, a 33 KV Substation is required within the
layout area to construct a sub-station and without the same,
power supply cannot be released due to lack of infrastructure.
@@@
15. Writ petitioner rests her case on the sale deed dated
16.08.1983, a perusal of which shows that vendors 28 in
number executed the sale deed in favour of her father. In the
said deed, it is noted that vendors are absolute owners and
pattadars of land bearing Survey Nos. 111, 134 to 139,
146/A/1, 148 to 158, 159/A, 161, 162, 165, 166, 171, 178 to
180, 181/A, 183, 189 to 191 admeasuring Acs.460.06 guntas at
Vattinagaulapalli for which layout plan was sanctioned by
Vattinagulapali Gram Panchayat. Vendors have agreed to sell
the vendee Plot No. 700 admeasuring 500 square yards. They
declared that their interest and title, etcetera over the said plot
under the sale have been ceased from the date of registration of
this sale deed and the vendee has become the absolute owner
and possessor of said plot. Accordingly, they delivered vacant
and physical possession of the plot to the vendee that day and
the vendee is at liberty to utilise the plot under sale or any part
thereof in any manner he likes. However, some of the vendors
(13) of the father of writ petitioner, executed registered partition
deed No.3913 of 2004, dated 06.04.2004, partitioning total
extent of land Ac.460.06 guntas, among themselves suppressing
the fact that the same was sold to 3328 plot owners way back in
1983. After that, intentionally, to cheat the innocent
purchasers, some of the vendors sold Acs.33.00 guntas in
Survey Nos. 178, 179 of Vattinagulapali to M/s Jaihind Green
Fields Limited vide sale deed dated 17.03.1997. Thereafter, Y.
Jaihind Reddy claims to be in possession of Acs. 146.05 guntas
in Survey Nos. 111, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158,
159, 161, 162, 190 of Vattinagulapalli by virtue of agreement of
sale dated 14.07.2013 and by the judgment and decree dated
14.09.2021 in O.S.No. 54 of 2021 on the file of Court of II
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar against
some of the vendors of the father of petitioner.
It is clear that vendors of writ petitioner' father sold
the subject land, as narrated supra, to the proposed
respondents. In these implead Applications, proposed parties
did not raise their voice against the persons who cheated them,
by creating a second / third sale intentionally and they
themselves approached the competent civil Court seeking suit
for specific performance. They succeeded without making the
writ petitioner and others as party respondents who purchased
the lands in 1983 in small extents.
16. Investment on land in India has a history of
significant appreciation, implying that its value generally does
not depreciate over time, thus land purchase is a stable and
secure investment option through the decades with a greater
propensity of inducing long-term success and profitability. So,
especially in South Part, poor and middle-class people invest
their sweat and blood in land to meet their future requirements
like children marriage, medical expenses, etcetera. In this case,
all the petitioners belong to middle-class and below middle-
class, majority hail from Andhra Pradesh. Implead petitioners,
who are blue-eyed and have muscle power, knowing fully-well
that these properties have been sold out long back, intentionally
purchased the same from 13 vendors. They have created
interest to the implead petitioners that this property belongs to
15 vendors how 13 vendors conveyed rights over the entire and
belongs to 15 is unknown to law.
17. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on the
following judgments:
High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in
Mahdevappa v. Uday Kumar 1, wherein it is held that Section
48 of the Transfer of Property Act determines the priority, when
there are successive transfers. The provision contains
important principle that no man can convey a title better than
what he himself possess. If a person effects a transfer of
property, in law, he cannot thereafter, deal with the same
property, already transferred by him, ignoring the rights already
created by the earlier transfer effected.
ILR 2015 KAR 5767
In Atla Sidda Reddy v. Busi Subba Reddy 2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that first sale is valid.
18. In view of the above legal precedents, since the
petitioner's father purchased the land in 1983 i.e. prior to the
so-called sales said to have been made in favour of the proposed
parties, and since petitioner is in occupation of the subject land,
she cannot be denied the electricity connection on the ground
that civil litigation is pending between the parties in different
fora. As held by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in
Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya v. PGVCL through the
Deputy Engineer 3, the ownership or right of occupancy has no
nexus with grant of electricity connection to a consumer.
19. Here it is apposite to note that Respondents 2 to 4
filed counter within few days denying the facts mentioned in the
Writ Petition. This Court never seen such a situation where
TRANSCO has come up with counter in such a tempo. It seems
that the Corporation is hand-in-glove with the implead
petitioners who are having money and muscle power. Though
this Writ petition is filed with a simple prayer to direct the
respondents to provide electricity connection pursuant to the
Application of petitioner dated 20.09.2023, the facts and
(2010) 6 SCC 666
2022 SCC On Line Guj 1086
circumstances pleaded forced this Court to go beyond the
prayer and make observations, for, day in and day out, this
Court has been witnessing 'n' number of cases where people
with their might, influencing the officials and getting the land
registered number of times, due to which innocent parties who
cannot afford to roam around the Courts in search of justice are
suffering a lot.
20. In this case, the proposed parties have not
endeavoured to get the sale deeds registered in favour of
petitioner in 1983 set at naught. Unless and until the sale deeds
are declared to be null and void by a competent authority,
implead petitioners cannot get any relief as they are the
subsequent purchasers that too after lapse of nearly 30 years.
21. At this juncture, learned counsel for proposed
parties relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development
Authority 4, submits that it is well-settled that jurisdiction
exercised by the High Court under Article 226 is extraordinary,
equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner
approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and
put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or
suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts
(2021) 9 SCR 359
which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or
relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side,
then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well
as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.
According to proposed parties, petitioner has not disclosed the
factum of appealing against the judgment and decree in the suit
and filing suits in different fora. This Court is unable to accept
the said contention, as, when title is not passed on to the
proposed parties, the question of impleading them does not
arise. Though this Court has heavy sympathies with the
proposed parties, in view of the law settled on the subject,
deems it not appropriate to implead them as party respondents.
Accordingly, I.A.Nos. 2 to 4 of 2023 are dismissed.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the firm opinion that it is a fit case to grant the relief sought in
the Writ Petition.
23. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The
respondent Corporation is directed to provide electricity
connection to petitioner in respect of subject premises, forthwith
pursuant to the Application dated 20.09.2023. In the
circumstances, it is directed that proposed parties shall deposit
costs of Rs.1,000/- each in favour of the High Court Legal
Services Committee within ten days from today. If the said
directive is not complied with, needless to say, Registry shall list
the matter before the Court.
24. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th March 2024
ksld
