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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
Order dt.28.09.2022 in W.P.No.3320 of 2006
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
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,
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.
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
2024 SCC Online SC 4589
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.
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
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Dt.09.06.2025
GJ/GRA
