Smt.B.Prathima

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt.B.PRATHIMA, B.L., LL.M., VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

On this the 23rd day of February, 2016.

O.S.No. 1597 of 2006

Between:

Chaitanya Villas Welfare Association, Hyderguda, Regd.No.2692/2000, Having its office at 90G, Chaitanya Villas, Upperpally, Rep. by its President, K.D.Vaidya, S/o. Late D.R.Vaidya, Age: 65 years, Occ: Retd. Service, R/o. Chaitanya Villas Colony, 84-A, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

....Plaintiff

A N D

1. Mungala Buchi Reddy, S/o M. Janga Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agricluture

2. M.Vanamala, D/o M. Buchi Reddy, Age: 23 years, Occ: Household

3. Smt.P.Lavanya Reddy, W/o P. Raghava Reddy, Age: 29 years, Occ: Household

Defandants 1 to 3 are the residents of Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Municipality, RR District.

4. Mungala Neelam Reddy, S/o M. Janga Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agricluture

5. V.Anuradha, D/o M. Neelam Reddy, Age: 22 years, Occ: Household

6. Mungala Nagender Reddy, S/o M. Neelam Reddy, Age: 22 years, Occ: Service

7. Mungala Parma Reddy, S/o M. Janga Reddy, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agricluture

8. Mungala Ravinder Reddy, S/o M. Parma Reddy, Age: 29 years, Occ: Business

9. Mungala Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o M. Parma Reddy, Age: 27 years, Occ: Business

Defendants 4 to 9 are residents of Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

10. Smt.Singireddy Krishna Veni, W/o S. Sudarshan Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Balapur(V), Saroornagar (M), RR Dist.

11. Smt.Kondakalla Shobha, W/o Laxma Reddy, Age: 39 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Attapur(V), Rajendranagar Muncipality , RR Dist.

12. Smt.Kuntuluru Vijaya Laxmi, W/o K. Narsimha Reddy, Age: 37 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Manikonda(V), Rajendranagar(M), RR Dist.

13. Smt.Kondakalla Prabhavathi, W/o K. Raji Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Attapur(V), Rajendranagar Muncipality, RR Dist.

14. Smt.Kalavathi , W/o Madhusudhan Reddy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Ganapur(V), Chevella Muncipality, RR Dist.

15. B.Poorna Chandra Reddy, S/o B. Seena Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o No.5, Himagiri Meadows, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore South Taluk.

2 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

16. L.Srikant Reddy, S/o Late Raghugma Reddy, Age: 34 Years, Occ: Business, S.V. Colony, Biramalguda, Kharmanghat, Hyderabad.

17. D.Krishna Reddy, S/o Late D. Venkat Reddy, Age: 36 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.25, H.No.11-10-206/1, Kalki Nagar, Viyayapuri Colony, Kothapeta, RR Dist.

18. V.Chennakesava Rao, S/o V. Siva Prasad, Age: 47 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.5013, Janapriya Paradise Apartment, Road No.1, Street No.1, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad.

19. M.Rameswar Rao, S/o Gopala Swamy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Businessm R/o H.No. 20, Ambience Fort, Kantha Reddy Nagar, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Muncipality, RR Dist.

(D19 was impleaded as per orders in IA 1893/09 dt.31-5-2010)

....Defendants.

This suit having come before me on this the 31st day of December, 2015 for hearing and final disposal in the presence of Sri V. Venu Gopala Rao, Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri. G.Sudershan Reddy, Counsel for Defendant No.15, Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Counsel for Defendant No.17 and 18 and the case against Defendants 1, 2, 10, 14 and 16 is dismissed and D3, D4 to 8 and D11 to D13 were set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Plaintiff Association filed the suit seeking the relief to declare the four sale deeds viz., (1) Doct. No.7361 dt.18-05-2006 executed by D15 and D16 in favour D17, (2) Doct.

No.7360/2006 dt.18-05-2006 executed by D15 and D16 in favour of D18, (3) Doct.

No.2713/2009 and (4) Doct. No.2714/2009 executed by D17 and D18 in favour of D19 as null and void and that plaintiff Association is entitled to enjoy the suit property as common amenities and for the relief of permanent injunction.

2.Plaintiff is a registered Association having its office at the given address and it is registered on 30-03-2000 under the provisions of the AP (Telangana Area) Public

Societies registration Act, 1350 Fasli. The main objects of the plaintiff Association is to maintain and manage all facilities and amenities like roads, passages, slab-room, generator, electricity, water, drainage and telephone line etc provided or to be provided in the premises of “Chaitanya Villas” apart from other objects and to look after the welfare of the members of the association who are the residents and owners of the plots in

Chaitanya villas. Since the inception of the Association, it is catering to the needs of the members. Through Resolution dated 31-05-2006, the General Body authorized the

President of the Association to represent in the legal matters on behalf of the association including the present cause. Defendants 1 to 14 are the original owners of Ac 4-33 gt in 3 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

various survey numbers and the suit schedule property is part and part of said land. D15 is the Agreement Cum GPA Development Holder of D1 to D14 under registered documents who developed the land by constructing independent houses in favour of the members of the plaintiff Association. D16 seems to be the Special Powers Attorney Holder of D15 under a registered document. D17 and D18 are alleged purchasers of Schedule A plot 95 and Schedule B plot 94 respectively under two different registered sale deeds both dated 18-05-2006. D15 made layout by dividing the land into 95 plots as per the rules. D15 left requisite space towards parks and other amenities as required under the layout rules on behalf of D1 to D14 under permit No. 2777/MP2/H/2004. At the time of granting final approval of the said layout, the authorities put a specific condition that no constructions should be made over the area plots No.94, 95, 60 and 84 which are earmarked for amenities without prior permission of HUDA. The sale transactions in favour of D17 and

D18 are void documents and have no sanctity in the eye of law and they do not convey any title to D17 and D18. By executing the sale deeds, D1 to D16 committed fraud on members of the Plaintiff Association. Under their sale deeds, D17 and D18 tried to make construction in the suit plots on 25-06-2006 which the plaintiff Association could resist with great difficulty. Hence, the suit.

3. D1 to D14 remained absent and were exparte.

4. D15 filed his written statement with the following averments:

The HUDA gave a permission vide permit No.27777/MP2/4/2004 for final layout approval. It is denied that HUDA put a condition that no construction should be made over plot no.94, 95, 60 and 84 which are earmarked for amenities without prior permission from HUDA. D15 made layout including constructions of houses. The layout mentioned that the total houses are 83 + 4 = 87 out of which 81 houses construction was completed and under completed houses are 6. As per norms of the

HUDA, D15 made layout permissible plotted area is 60% and remaining areas should be for roads and other amenities. In the present layout D15 has plotted ares only 57.88% including plotted area of plot No.94 and 95. As such, it reveals that there is no deviation done by D15. Plaintiff does not have any right over the plot No.94 and 95. It is for common purpose, the MCH or HUDA can take over the area of the common purpose. It is denied that no title was conveyed in favour of D17 and D18. It is true that in 4 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

proceedings of the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Rajendranagar District vide proceeding No.G60/MCR/1084/LP/2005 dt.4-10-2005 in Clause No.12 it was specified that the applicant shall take permission for amenities area plot No.94, 95, 60 and 84 from

HUDA. As as on the date of issuance of said proceedings, D15 constructed only 81 plots and remaining plots are open plots and HUDA put a condition that whenever the applicants constructs the houses shall take permission from HUDA. The applicant is D15 and hence, the suit may be dismissed.

5. D18 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement filed by D17. D17 filed written statement with the same pleas made in the written statement of D15 and further alleged that they are bonafide purchasers of plots No.94 and 95 and sought to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed for trial on 10-11-2008:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration?

2. Whether the registered sale deeds dt.18-5-2006 executed by D15 & D16 on behalf of D1 to D14 in favour of D17 and D18 are null and void?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the suit property with common amenities?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from alienating and making constructions over the suit property by changing the nature of the same?

5. To what relief?

7. In support of their case plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 to A10 and examined PW1. Defendants examined DW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced by defendant.

8.Heard both sides.

Issues No 1 & 2:

9.The admitted facts of the case are that D1 to D14 are the original owners of Ac 04.33 gt situated in various survey numbers of Upperpally village of Rejendra Nagar 5 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

Municipality. D1 to D14 sold the said land under different registered sale deeds in favour of D15. D15 in turn developed the land, made it into plots by obtaining due permission from the HUDA vide Ex.A3 Final Layout approval dt.28-11-2005. It is also an admitted fact that as per clause 15 of Ex.A3, plots No.60, 84, 94 and 95 are meant for amenities and D15 cannot sell the same without the permission of the HUDA. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming to be the Registered Owners Welfare Association of the residential villas located in the suit layout contending that D15 who is the Developer of the land had violated clause No.15 of Ex.A3 and sold plots No.94 and 95 to D17 and D18 and that they in turn entered into agreement of sale with D19 and alleging so, sought to declare the plots No.94 and 95 as areas meant for common amenities which cannot be sold except for common amenities. Plaintiff also sought for the relief of cancellation of the sale transactions in favor of D17 to D19.

10.In support of its case, plaintiff examined its President as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A8. The chief affidavit of PW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in the plaint.

The claim of the plaintiff is strongly opposed on the grounds that plaintiff has no locustandi to file the suit and that D15 got authority to sell plots No.94 and 95 to others.

11.Firstly, coming to the locustandi of the plaintiff to file the suit, plaintiff claims to be a registered Association having registration No.2692. Ex.A4 is the resolution letter dt.31-5-2006 showing that the Emergency General Body Meeting of Chaitanya Villas

Welfare Association was held on 31-5-2005 and they have unanimously resolved to initiate legal course of action against the construction on plots No.94 and 95 earmarked for 'amenities' in the park area of colony and they authorized the President to represent the

Association in the said matter. This resolution was on the letter head which reads as 'Chaitanya Villas Welfare Association' and the name of President is given as K.D.Vaidya.

12.This document is totally disputed by the contesting defendants and they claim that there is no such registered welfare association under the name and style of Chaitanya

Villas Welfare Association and that plaintiff has no concern with Chaitanya villas.

Admittedly, the layout was for construction of residential villas and D15 is the developer of this layout. The project is styled as "Chaitanya Villas" of Kukatpally Village. Ex.A3

Final Layout refers to the villas being constructed by D15 as 'Chaitanya Villas'. Thus, there is no dispute that the suit plots No.94 and 95 were part of Ex.A3.

6 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

13.PW1 claims to be resident of Chaitanya Villas and as President of the plaintiff

Association. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently submitted that the plaintiff had failed to file any single document to show that there is any such Welfare Association and that PW1 was its president. Except filing Ex.A4 resolution, plaintiff did not file any document to show that there is a Registered Welfare Association for Chaitanya Villas. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that after completion of construction of the Villas, the villas shall have a registered welfare Association and the Builder or the

Developer will no more have any right over the villas and the Layout land and the welfare of the Association and this Registered Welfare Association has to look after the maintenance of the Villas and the Layout land as per law. This argument was not controverted by the learned counsel for the defendants and they also submitted that after completion of construction of Villas and after the same are sold, the maintenance of the

Villas and the layout land, as per law shall be taken over by a Registered Welfare

Association. However, learned counsel further submitted that the roads in the layout are being maintained by the Municipal authorities and not the Plaintiff Association. This fact is not relevant for the decision of the present issue and the same is not discussed.

However, learned counsel failed to state if there is any other Welfare Association managing the Villas and the other amenities in the Gated Community.

14.According to the plaintiff, his wife is owner of Plot No.84 and they are residents of Plot No.84. He further stated that there are 125 houses built on 95 plots and all the owners of the property are members of the plaintiff association. Interestingly, it was suggested to PW1 that the plaintiff association consists of 20 to 30 members only. This suggestion to PW1 shows that there is indeed an association as styled as plaintiff and that it is the welfare association of Chaitanya Villas. Coming to the capacity of PW1 as

President of the Association, Ex.A4 Resolution dt.31-05-2006 was on the Letter Head of

Chaitanya Villas Welfare Association with Registered No.2692 and this Resolution was signed by A. Srinivas, Secretary. The contents of this document are that an Emergency

General Body Meeting of Chaitanya Villas Welfare Association held on on 31-05-2006 unanimously resolved to initiate legal course of action against the construction on Plots.

No.94 & 95 earmarked for 'amenities' in the Park Area of the Colony and authorized the

President to represent the Association in the matter. The name of the President is mentioned as K. D. Vaidya. This document is sufficient to show that at the relevant point 7 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

of time, PW1 was the president of the Plaintiff Association and he got locus standi to file the suit as well as give evidence in this case.

15.Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that even otherwise, the wife of the plaintiff was owner of one of the villas and the plaintiff being a resident of this Gated community, he got every right to enjoy the common amenities area and question the acts of the defendants violating the conditions of the layout. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the authority of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1902 Bangalore

Medical Trust vs S. Muddappa and others. Specifically speaking, said authority is not relevant for the present suit as the subject matter of said case before the Hon'ble Apex

Court was a public place and the subject matter of the present suit is meant for common amenities for the purpose of the residents of the villas. Broadly speaking in said

Judgement Hon'ble Apex Court authnitatirely held that in a Development scheme,

protection of environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds for childreen, promenade for the residents, and other conveniences or amentities are matters of great public concern and vital interest to be taken care of. Thus, as per this Judgment,

PW1 being resident of the Chaitanya Villas got every right to express concern over suit plots said to be meant for amenities.

16.Learned counsel for the defendants have raised another objection at the time of arguments submitting that the suit ought to have been filed as a Prepresentative suit under

Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, but the plaintiff failed to follow the procedure stipulated under the law and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. This court does not agree with the said argument of the learned counsel for the defendants. The suit itself is filed by a Registered

Association represented by its President and when such is the case, there is no necessity to file the suit as a representative suit by following the procedure under Order 1 Rule 8.

17.Coming to the nature of the two disputed suit plots viz., Plots No.94 & 95, plaintiff claims that these two plots as per Ex.A3 Final Lay out of the HUDA are meant for common amenities for the welfare of the villas' residents and D15 had violated the clause of the Final Lay out and sold these two plots along with D16 in favor of D17 and D18.

The questions now before this Court are -

1.Whether Plots No.94 & 95 are meant for common amenities?

8 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

2.Whether D15 and D16 have got any right to sell plots No.94 and & 95 to others?

18.Clause 15 of Ex.A3 Final Approved Layout under the signature of the Vice

Chairman Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) reads as under:

“The applicant shall take permission for amenities area Plots No.94 & 95 and two remaining plots No.64 & 65 from HUDA.”

19.Admittedly, D15 is the applicant of this Residential Lay out. D15 to D18 took a peculiar stand in their written statement. They claim that the layout mentioned that the total houses are 83 + 4 = 87 out of which 81 houses construction was completed and under completed houses are 6, and as per norms of the HUDA, permissible plotted area for houses should be 60% and the remaining areas 40% should be for roads and other amenities whereas, in the present layout D15 had less plotted areas i.e. only 57.88% including plotted area of plots No.94 and 95 and as such there is no deviation. From these pleadings it is clear that D15 to D18 try to substantiate the sale of Plots No.94 & 95 on the ground that D15 had left the necessary area for road and amenities and the plotted are including the disputed suit plots is only 57.88%.

20.D15 is examined as DW1 in this case. His chief-affidavit is reiteration of the facts pleaded in is written statement. He affirmed that even if the plots No.94 and 95 area is excluded, he left the mandatory area for the purpose of roads and parks and amenities. He tried to justify his stand stating that the plotted area for the purpose of houses including the plots 94 & 95 is less than the mandatory area of 60%. plaintiff denied these pleas of the defendants. Plaintiff categorically suggested in the cross-examination of DW1 that the suit plots No.94 & 95 were meant for common amenities. Significantly, DW1 admitted that the plots No.94 & 95 are meant for common amenities. Thus, it is conclusively established that the suit plots No.94 and 95 are meant for common amenities. Having admitted so, DW1 again states that he got right to alienate the suit plots and that they are not meant for common purpose. He further stated that he did not obtain any permission from the HUDA for selling the suit plots.

21.Learned counsel for the defendants submitted under Ex.A3 though it was mentioned that the suit plots are to be sold only with the permission of the HUDA, the 9 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

sale transactions having already been made by D15, plaintiff cannot question them and it is for the HUDA authorities. This argument of the learned counsel for the defendants is not permissible. Ex.A3 Final Layout specifically mentions that the suit plots were meant for amenities and that they cannot be sold without the permission of HUDA. DW1 admits that they have not obtained any permission from the HUDA to alienate the suit plots.

Even if the suit plots are alienated to others, the purpose should be for building hospital, park etc., which would enure to the common benefit of the residents of the villas and not for the individual benefit of the Developer. D15 is bound by the condiitions of Ex.A3

Final Layout.

22.Plaintiff sought to declare the sale transactions of the suit plots by D15 and D16 in favor of D17 and D18 as illegal transaction. Ex.A1 and A2 are the CC of registered sale deeds both dt.18-05-2006. D1 to 14 through D15 and D16 sold plot 94 in favor of D17 under Ex.A1 and they sold Plot No.95 in favor of D18 under Ex.A2. Amenity is defined under Section 2 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 under which Ex.A3 plan is governed, and it reads as under:

'amenity' includes road, water supply, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, public works, tourists spots, open spaces, parks and play fields, and such other convenience as the Goernment may by notification, specify to be an amenity for the purposes of this Act;'

23.A perusal of Ex.A1 and A2 sale deeds show that they are sold not for any common amenties purpose. Thus, the sale of plots No.94 & 95 without the permission of HUDA and that too not for any purpose of common amenity is against the condiitons imposed under Ex.A3 plan and are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff Associaiton. These issues are decided against the defendants.

Issuses No.3 & 4:

24.A finding is given in Issues No.1 and 2 that the suit plots are earmarked for use as common amenties of Chaitanya Villas and the same have to be used as common amenities for the welfare and benefit of Chaitanya Villas. Having obtained a Final Lay out under

Ex.A3 with a condiiton, amongst others, that the suit plots No.94 & 95 shall be used for common amenties and not to be sold without the permission of HUDA, D1 to D16 10 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

violated the condiitons and sold them to D17 and D18 and they in turn sold them to D19 under two different Agreements of Sale cum GPA Ex.A9 and A10 both dt.08-06-2006 not for any amenties purpsoe. This fact necessitates that the defendants shall be restrained from making any further alienations with respect to these plots.

25.Plainaitff also sougth this Court to restrain the defendants from making any construction in the suit plots. It is not the case of the defendants that they have raised any construction in the suit plots. PW1 states that a basemnet was raised in the suit plots at which point of time they raised objection and the construction was stopped. Thus, there is no structure as such in the suit plots. In veiw of the findings given above, the defendnats shall be restrained from making any construction in the suit plots. These two issues are decided against the defendnts and in favor of hte plaintiff.

Issue No.5:

26.In view of the findings given in Issues No.1 to 4 , the suit of the plaintiff shall be decreed.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs as follows:

1.It is hereby declared that the four sale deeds viz., (1) Doct. No.7361 dt.18-05-2006 executed by D15 and D16 in favour D17, (2) Doct. No.7360/2006 dt.18-05-2006 executed by D15 and D16 in favour of D18, (3) Doct. No.2713/2009 dt 08-06-2006 and (4) Doct.

No.2714/2009 dt.08-06-2006 executed by D17 and D18 in favour of D19 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff Association.

2.It is declared that the suit schedule A and B plots are meant for common amenities and the plaintiff Association is entitled to enjoy the same as common amenities.

3.The defendants 2 to 9, 12. 13, 15 & 17 to 19 are restrained by way of permanent injunction from alienating the suit property in favor of others.

4.The defendants 2 to 9, 12. 13, 15 & 17 to 19 are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from making any constructions in the suit property except for the purpose of common amenities for the benefit of plaintiff association by obtaining due 11 of 11 OS 1597 of 2006

VIII ASJ RR DT

permission as per the relevant Statute.

Typed by me. Corrected and Pronounced by Me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2016.

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

On behalf of Plaintiff: On behalf of Defendants:

PW1: K.D.VaidyaB. Purnachandra Reddy

Exhibits Marked

On behalf of Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: CC of Sale deed Doct. No.7360/2006 dt.18-05-2006 Ex.A2: CC of Sale Deed Doct. No. 7361/2006 dt.18-05-2006 Ex.A3: Final Lay out dt.28-11-2005 Ex.A4: Resolution dt.31-05-2006 Ex.A5: Market value certificate of A schedule property dt.05-06-2006 Ex.A6: Market value certificate of B Schedule property Ex.A7: Encumbrance certificate of A schedule property dt.5-06-2006 Ex.A8: Encumbrance certificate of B schedule property dt.5-06-2006 Ex.A9: CC of Agreement of Sale cum GPA dt.08-06-2006 Ex.A10: CC of Agreement of Sale cum GPA dt.08-06-2006.

On behalf of Defendants:

Nil

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. B. PRATHIMA, B.L., LL.M.

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2016

LAOP No.81 of 2012

Between:-

Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit-V ORRP, HUDA, Hyderabad .. Referencer.

A N D

Smt. Chandravathi Jaiswal w/o Mr. Ramchander Jaiswal H. NO.104, Sitaram Apartment, Street No.1, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad -29 ... Claimant

This petition having come before me for hearing on the 12th day of November, 2015 in the presence of Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel for the Reference and Sri N. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for Claimant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.This is a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as LA Act) filed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit-V ORRP, HUDA,

Hyderabad (in short ‘LAO’), for adjudication of the market value of the land acquired on the ground that the sole awardee received the compensation amount under protest and requested to refer the case to Civil Court for adjudication.

2.The acquisition was with respect to different extents of land situated at

Gachibowli village for formation of Outer Ring Road pertaining to the draft notification issued U/sec.4(1) of the LA Act published in AP Gazette ORR No.246 dt.25-02-2006 and

Draft Declaration U/s 6 of LA Act published in AP Gazette ORR No.248 dt.01-03-2006.

The award was passed vide Proceedings Award No.3/LA/Unit-V/06/ORR/2006 dt.15-05- 2006 and market value of the lands acquired was fixed at Rs.2,200/- per Square Yard by taking into consideration the value of similar lands sold under registered sales for a period of 3 years preceding the date of draft notification and basing on the Basic value Register value of the lands furnished by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Initially the reference was stated as a dispute under Section 30 and 31 of LA Act and later the

LAO in his reference to the court dt.13-06-2012 sought reference only under section 18 of the LA Act stating that the Secretary District Legal Services Aurthority, Rangareddy had issued orders in LAOP 1171/2008 dt.27-08-2010 to the effect that the claimant is entitled to draw the amount deposited in the court along with the accrued interest. The LAO also stated that the claimant filed a claim petition for enhancement of compensation under section 18 of the LA Act.

3.The reference was taken on record and was numbered as OP 81/2012 and notices was issued to the sole claimant and also the LAO.

4.Both parties appeared before the Court.

Claim Statement by the Sole Claimant:

5.Sole claimant filed claim statement with the following averments:

Claimant is the absolute owner of H. No.1-61 admeasuring 152 Sq yds in Sy.

No.6/2 of Gachibowli village, Serlingampally Mandal. The same was acquired for formation of Outer Ring Road. Claimant was not served with any notice. After demolition, on enquiry of claimant she came to know about the Award dt.09-05-2006 and that amount was deposited in the district Court RR District in OP No.1171/2008 and claimant had withdrawn said amount under protest. The amount fixed under the Award at

Rs.8,51,991/- is very low when compared to the prevailing market rate. The LAO did not issue any notice to the claimant at the time of conducting enquiry and as such she could not file any petition or claim before the LAO. The present market value in that area is

Rs.20,000/- per Sq yd and as on 01-03-2006, the market value was Rs.6,000/- per Sq yd.

Claimant also raised a construction in the site by spending Rs.2,00,000/- and the

Municipal Corporation allotted H. No.1-61 and she is regularly paying the municipal taxes. Hence, the claimant is entitled or compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the construction.

Reply statement by the LAO:

6.The Referencer (LAO) filed Counter/Reply Statement with the following averments:

The claim of the claimant is speculative and she is not entitled for enhanced compensation. The Award was passed after following the procedure on 15-05-2006. The value was fixed after collecting sale data particulars in the village for the preceeding three years of the date of notification. The enhancement sought at Rs.6,000/- per Sq yd is abnormal. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

7.Basing on the rival contentions, the following questions/points arise for determination in this petition -

1.Whether the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.2,200/- per Square Yard for the lands acquired of the claimant in Sy. No.6/2 of Gachibowli village is very meagre? and

2.Whether the market value has to be enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per Square

Yard with the attendant benefits and interest?

Points 1 & 2:

9.The facts leading to filing of this petition are that the LAO published draft notification U/sec.4(1) of the LA Act in AP Gazette ORR No.246 dt.25-02-2006 and

Draft Declaration U/s 6 of LA Act in AP Gazette ORR No.248 dt.01-03-2006 for acquisition of lands in Survey numbers 6/1. 10, 17, 18/2/AA, 50, 51, 52 89 & 96. situated at Gachibowli village for formation of Outer Ring Road. The award was passed vide

Proceedings Award No.3/LA/Unit-V/06/ORR/2006 dt.15-05-2006 and market value of the lands acquired was fixed at Rs.2,200/- per Square Yard. As seen from the copy of the

Award filed with the reference application, the market value ws fixed by adopting the comparative sale methods i.e. by taking into consideration the value of similar lands sold under registered sales for a period of 3 years preceding the date of draft notification. The

Award also mentions that the market value was also arrived at basing on the Basic value

Register value of the lands furnished by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Claimant claimed that fixing of market value for the acquired lands by the

LAO at Rs.2,200/- per Sq Yd is low compared to the market value prevailing as on the relevant date of issuance of notification. Claimant also claimed that she raised a structure in the acquired land by spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and she also sought for additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

11.As seen from the Award, claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.2,200/- per square

Yard for 152 Sq Yd apart from a sum of Rs.5,04,377/- towards the structure raised in the acquired land. Thus, a total sum of Rs.8,51,990/- was awarded to the claimant which she claims to have received under protest.

12.To prove that she is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,000/- per square yard, claimant examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 & A2. The chief- affidavit of PW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the Market

Value certifificate dt.03-05-2012. Ex.A2 is another market value certifcate dt.04-05-2012.

Ex.A1 was issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar RR District for H.No1-67 of Gachibowli shown as Commercial and the Market Value per Square Yard is given as Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A2 was also issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar RR District for Sy. No.6/1,10.12, Plot

No.11 & 12 Commercial, Main Road and the Market value as on 01-03-2006 of these lands is given as Rs.6,000/- per square yard.

13.There was minimal cross-examination of PW1. It was merely suggested to PW1 that she is claiming excess compensation and that she is not entitled for any enhanced compensation. PW1 denied this suggestion. Except putting this suggestion to PW1 there is no other cross-examination of PW1. Ex.A2 which is the relevant market value certificate pertaining to the relevant date of issuance of the Draft Notification, was not even questioned and it was not disputed. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the method adopted by the LAO for fixing the market value. It is mentioned in page 6 of the

Award that Sales Statistics of the lands of Gachibowli village for the 3 years preceding the date of draft notification were obtained. The Award mentions that there were 121 sales with respect to Agricultural lands and 808 sales with respect to Non-Agriculturual lands. The sale transactions at the given serial numbers were discarded by the LAO for the following reasons:

•The lands sold under acreage basis do not represent to the correct value as the lands under acqusition are not agricultural lands and are nearer to Hyderabad City and are commercially well developed and as such the sales on acreage basis are discarded and sales only under yard basis are considered.

•The lands are situated at a distance of ½ km to 2 km from the lands under acquisition which do not represent the correct value •The sales are combined sales. It is not clear as to what combined sales were meant, whether the combined sale was with respect to different survey numbers or with respect to agricultural and non agricultural lands or combined sale in any other manner.

•The sales are willfully registered for higher prices.

•The sales are at lesser value.

14.Thus, having discarded most of the sales for the above given reasons, the

LAO considered Sales in Sy. No.6/1, 50 & 96 'for Residential'. The sales considered by the LAO pertain to 200 Sq yd in Sy. No.96. Sales of land in Sy. No.6/1 and Sy. No.50 were also shown to have been considered and that these sales were said to have been made at Rs.2,200/- per square yard. The Award further mentions as follows:

“These said Sy. Nos. are partly coming under Outer Ring Road Junction. The nature of soil is similar in fertility, physical features of locational advantages to the lands under acquisition. As per the particulars furnished by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, the basic value for the entire lands of Gachibowli village is for Rs.2,200/- per Sq yard. In view of the above, the market value of the lands under acquisition is fixed at Rs.2,200/- per Sq Yard.”

15.Thus, the Award mentions that comparative sales method was adopted and at the same time mentions that the Basic Value Register of the Sub-Registrar was also considered. The Award mentions that the sub Registrar gave the value as Rs.2,200/- per square yard. Ex.A2 is the market value certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, RR

District giving the value of the lands in Sy. No.6/1,10,12 as Rs.6,000/- per square yard as on the date of Draft Notification i.e. as on 25-02-2006. As already observed, Ex.A2 remained unchallenged. No evidence was adduced by the Referencer to show that the value of the acquired lands of the claimant as on the date of the Draft Notification was only Rs.2,200/- per square yard. I do not see any singly reason to disbelieve Ex.A2. I hold that the subject acquired lands were having a market value of Rs,6,000/- per square yard as given in Ex.A2. Accordingly, the market value of the subject acquired lands of the claimant is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per sq yd.

16.Claimant also sought to pay an additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the sturcture raised in her land. Claimant admittedly received a sum of Rs.5,04,377/- which was valued by the Deputy Executive Engineer R & B Division. Claimant failed to produce any evidence to show that the structure in the acquired land was valued more than what was valued by the LAO. I hold that the claimant is not entitled for any

additional amount towards the value of the structure in the acquired land of the claimant.

17.In the light of the above discussion, the market value of the land for land acquired at the Gachibowli village of the claimant can be fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rs. Six thousand only) per Square Yard and I hold that the claimant is entitled for enhanced market value for the acquired land and the market value is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per Square yard.

18.IN THE RESULT, The reference is answered in favour of claimant and the award is passed as under -

1. The market value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.6,000/- per Square Yard.

2. The claimant is entitled for additional market value, Solatium and interest at the rate Awarded by the LAO on the enhanced Market Value.

3. The Collector/LAO is directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aggregate value of market value, additional market value and solatium for one year from the date of notification i.e. 25-02.2006 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the entire amount is paid after deducting the amounts paid. The amounts paid and to be paid shall be appropriated as laid down by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs.

Union of India reported in 2007(4) ALD 105 SC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2016.

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

On behalf of Claimant: On behalf of Referencer: PW1 : Smt. Chandravathi Jaiswal Nil

Exhibits Marked

Ex.A1: Market value certificate dt.03-05-2012 Ex.A2: Market value certificate dt.01-03-2006

On behalf of Referencer: --Nil--

VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, District.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. B. PRATHIMA, B.L., LL.M.

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2016

LAOP No.80 of 2012

Between:-

Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit-V ORRP, HUDA, Hyderabad .. Referencer.

A N D

Smt. M. Sumithra W/o Dasharath H. NO.4-101, Raidurg (Darga) Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District.

... Claimant

This petition having come before me for hearing on the 12th day of November, 2015 in the presence of Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel for the Reference and Sri N. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for Claimant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.This is a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as LA Act) filed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit-V ORRP, HUDA,

Hyderabad (in short ‘LAO’), for adjudication of the market value of the land acquired on the ground that the sole awardee received the compensation amount under protest and requested to refer the case to Civil Court for adjudication.

2.The acquisition was with respect to different extents of land situated at Gachibowli village for formation of Outer Ring Road pertaining to the draft notification issued

U/sec.4(1) of the LA Act published in AP Gazette ORR No.246 dt.25-02-2006 and Draft

Declaration U/s 6 of LA Act published in AP Gazette ORR No.248 dt.01-03-2006. The award was passed vide Proceedings Award No.3/LA/Unit-V/06/ORR/2006 dt.15-05-2006 and market value of the lands acquired was fixed at Rs.2,200/- per Square Yard by taking into consideration the value of similar lands sold under registered sales for a period of 3 years preceding the date of draft notification and basing on the Basic value Register value of the lands furnished by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Initially the reference was stated as a dispute under Section 30 and 31 of LA Act and later the LAO in his reference to the court dt.13-06-2012 sought reference only under section 18 of the LA

Act stating that the Secretary District Legal Services Aurthority, Rangareddy had issued orders in LAOP 1171/2008 dt.27-08-2010 to the effect that the claimant is entitled to draw the amount deposited in the court along with the accrued interest. The LAO also stated that the claimant filed a claim petition for enhancement of compensation under section 18 of the LA act.

3.The reference was taken on record and was numbered as OP 80/2012 and notices was issued to the sole claimant and also the LAO.

4.Both parties appeared before the Court.

Claim Statement by the Sole Claimant:

5.Sole claimant filed claim statement with the following averments:

Claimant is the absolute owner of H. No.2-64/13/3 admeasuring 138 Sq yds in Sy.

No.10 of Gachibowli village, Serlingampally Mandal. The same was acquired for formation of Outer Ring Road. Claimant was not served with any notice. After demolition, on enquiry of claimant she came to know about the Award dt.09-05-2006 and that amount was deposited in the district Court RR District in OP NO.1171/2008 and claimant had withdrawn said amount. The amount fixed under the Award at Rs.4,58,179/- is very low when compared to the prevailing market rate. The LAO did not issue any notice to the claimant at the time of conducting enquiry and as such she could not file any petition or claim before the LAO. The present market value in that area is Rs.20,000/- per

Sq yd and as on 01-03-2006, the market value was Rs.6,000/- per Sq yd. Claimant also raised a construction in the site by spending Rs.2,00,000/- and the Municipal Corporation allotted H. No.2-64-13/3 and she is regularly paying the municipal taxes. Hence, the claimant is entitled or compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and additional amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards the construction.

Reply statement by the LAO:

6.The Referencer (LAO) filed Counter/Reply Statement with the following averments:

The claim of the claimant is speculative and she is not entitled for enhanced compensation. The Award was passed after following the procedure on 15-05-2006. the value was fixed after collecting sale data particulars in the village for the preceeding three years of the date of notification. The enhancement sought at Rs.6,000/- per Sq yd is abnormal. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

7.Basing on the rival contentions, the following questions/points arise for determination in this petition -

1.Whether the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.2,200/- per Square Yard for the lands acquired of the claimant in Sy. No.10 of Gachibowli village is very meagre? and

2.Whether the market value has to be enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per Square

Yard with the attendant benefits and interest?

Points 1 & 2:

8.The facts leading to filing of this petition are that the LAO published draft notification U/sec.4(1) of the LA Act in AP Gazette ORR No.246 dt.25-02-2006 and

Draft Declaration U/s 6 of LA Act in AP Gazette ORR No.248 dt.01-03-2006 for acquisition of lands in Survey numbers 6/1. 10, 17, 18/2/AA, 50, 51, 52 89 & 96. situated at Gachibowli village for formation of Outer Ring Road. The award was passed vide

Proceedings Award No.3/LA/Unit-V/06/ORR/2006 dt.15-05-2006 and market value of the lands acquired was fixed at Rs.2,200/- per Square Yard. As seen from the copy of the

Award filed with the reference application, the market value ws fixed by adopting the comparative sale methods i.e. by taking into consideration the value of similar lands sold under registered sales for a period of 3 years preceding the date of draft notification. The

Award also mentions that the market value was also arrived at basing on the Basic value

Register value of the lands furnished by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Claimants claimed that fixing of market value for the acquired lands by the LAO at Rs.2,200/- per Sq Yd is low compared to the market value prevailing as on the relevant date of issuance of notification. Claimant also claimed that she raised a structure in the acquired land by spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and she also sought for additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

10.As seen from the Award, claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.2,200/- per square

Yard for 138 Sq Yd apart from a sum of Rs.1,43,336/- towards the structure raised in the acquired land. Thus, a total sum of Rs.4,58,179/- was awarded to the claimant which she claims to have received under protest.

11.To prove that she is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,000/- per square yard, claimant examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. The chief- affidavit of PW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the Market

Value certificate dt.03-05-2012. Ex.A2 is another market value certificate dt.04-05-2012.

Ex.A1 was issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar RR District for H.No1-67 of Gachibowli shown as Commercial and the Market Value per Square Yard is given as Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A2 was also issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar RR District for Sy. No.6/1,10.12, Plot

No.11 & 12 Commercial, Main Road and the Market value as on 01-03-2006 of these lands is given as Rs.6,000/- per square yard.

12.There was minimal cross-examination of PW1. It was merely suggested to PW1 that she is claiming excess compensation and that she is not entitled for any enhanced compensation. PW1 denied this suggestion. Except putting this suggestion to PW1 there is no other cross-examination of PW1. Ex.A2 which is the relevant market value certificate pertaining to the relevant date of issuance of the Draft Notification, was not even questioned and it was not disputed. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the method adopted by the LAO for fixing the market value. It is mentioned in page 6 of the

Award that Sales Statistics of the lands of Gachibowli village were obtained. The Award mentions that there were 121 sales with respect to Agricultural lands and 808 sales with respect to Non-Agriculturual lands. The sale transactions at the given serial numbers were discarded by the LAO for the following reasons:

•The lands sold under acreage basis do not represent to the correct value as the lands under acqusition are not agricultural lands and are nearer to Hyderabad City and afe commercially well developed and as such the sales on acreage basis are discarded and sales only under yard basis are considered.

•The lands were situated at a distance of ½ km to 2 km from the lands under acquisition.

•The sales are combined sales. It is not clear as to what combined sales were meant, whether the combined sale was with respect to different survey numbers or with respect to agricultural and non agricultural lands or combined sale in any other manner.

•The sales are willfully registered for higher prices.

•The sales are at lesser value.

14.Thus, having discarded most of the sales for the above give reasons, the LAO considered Sales in Sy. No.6/1, 50 & 96 for Residential. The sales considered by the LAO pertain to 200 Sq yd in Sy. No.96. Sales of land in Sy. No.6/1 and Sy. No.50 were also shown to have been considered and that these sales were said to have been made at

Rs.2,200/- per square yard. The Award further mentions as follows:

“These said Sy. Nos. are partly coming under Outer Ring Road Junction.

The nature of soil is similar in fertility, physical features of locationsal advantages to the lands under acquisition. As per the particulars furnished by theJoint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, the basic value for the entire lands of Gachibowli village is for Rs.2,200/- per Sq yard. In view of the above the market value of the lands under acquisition is fixed at

Rs.2,200/- per Sq Yard.”

15.Thus, the Award mentions that comparative sales method was adopted and at the same time mentions that the Basic Value Register of the Sub-Registrar was also considered. The Award mentions that the sub Registrar gave the value as Rs.2,200/- per square yard. Ex.A1 is the market value certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, RR

District giving the value of the lands in Sy. No.6/1,10,12 as Rs.6,000/- per square yard.

As already observed, Ex.A2 remained unchallenged. No evidence was adduced by the

Referencer to show that the value of the acquired lands of the claimant as on the date of the Draft Notification was only Rs.2,200/- per square yard. I hold that the subject acquired lands were having a market value of Rs,6,000/- per square yard as given in

Ex.A2. Accordingly, the market value of the subject acquired lands of the claimant is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per sq yd.

16.Claimant also sought to pay an additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the sturcture raised in her land. Claimant admittedly received a sum of Rs.5,04,377/- towards value of the structure which was valued by the Deputy Executive Engineer R & B

Division. Claimant failed to produce any evidence to show that the structure in the acquired land was valued more than what was valued by the LAO. I hold that the claimant is not entitled for any additional amount towards the value of the structure in the acquired land of the claimant.

17.In the light of the above discussion, the market value of the land for the land acquired at the Gachibowli village of the land of the claimant can be fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rs. Six thousand only) per Square Yard and I hold that the claimant is entitled for enhanced market value for the acquired land and the market value is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per Square yard.

18.IN THE RESULT, the reference is answered in favour of claimant and the award is passed as under -

1. The market value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.6,000/- per Square Yard.

2. The claimant is entitled for additional market value, Solatium and interest at the rate Awarded by the LAO on the enhanced Market Value.

3. The Collector/LAO is directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aggregate value of market value, additional market value and solatium for one year from the date of notification i.e. 25-02.2006 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the entire amount is paid after deducting the amounts paid. The amounts paid and to be paid shall be appropriated as laid down by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs.

Union of India reported in 2007(4) ALD 105 SC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2016

VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

On behalf of Claimant: On behalf of Referencer: PW1 : Smt. M. Sumithra

Exhibits Marked

Ex.A1: Market value certificate dt.03-05-2012 Ex.A2: Market value certificate dt.01-03-2006 Ex.A3: Municipal tax demand notices (3) Ex.A4: Muncipal tax payment receipts (3)

On behalf of Referencer: --Nil--

VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, District.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. B. PRATHIMA, B.L., LL.M.

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge

Rangareddy District

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2016

S.C.No. 261 of 2015

Name of the Complainant PS Pahadishareef

Name of the A1. KM Hassan Shareef, S/o KM Subhan Shareef, Age: 27 years, Occ: Private Employee Accused

A2. KM Hyder Shareef, S/o KM Subhan Shareef, Age; 20 Years, Occ: Student.

R/o H.No.7-94, Subhan Colony, Balpur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R District.

Charge U/Sec.307 R/W 34IPC

Crime No.91/2004

Plea of the AccusedNot Guilty

Finding of the CourtNot Guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused is found Not Guilty for the offence U/Sec.307 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted byAddl Public Prosecutor

Defence Conducted byG. Narasimha Advocate

This case was committed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad LB Nagar

RR Dt. vide PRC 41/2014.

This case having come before me on the 15th day of February, 2016 for final hearing in the presence of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. Accused 1 & 2 stand tried for the offence u/sec 307 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Pahadishareef laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that he received a complaint from the defacto complainant on 05-3-2014 2 Of 4SC 261 of 2015 VIII ASJ RR DT at 6 pm complaining that the complainant and his partners purchased plot at Sadath Nagar admeasuring 400 Sq yd from Hassan Shareef and Hyder Shareef and got registered the land in their names and they paid thte total amount to them but they did not give the possession to them and on 05-03-2014 at 1300 hrs, complainant and his brother Ismaila and his partner Ahmed Ali khan went to said plot and were performing pooja for construction and at 1330 hrs, the accused Hassan Baa and Hydera Shareef and their followers came with deadly weapons i.e. axe and attacked them with an intention to kill them due to which they received bleeding injuries and sought to take action.

3. Basing on this complainant, a case in Cr. N0 91/2014 was registered U/S 307

IPC. During the course of investigation, the statements of the defacto complainant and other witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and produced before the court, and on completion of investigation a case was made out against the accused for the offence under section 307 IPC and charge sheet was filed.

4. Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused by the XV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, RR District vide PRC 41/2014.

5. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Hon'ble Metropolitan

Sessions Court, where it was registered as SC No.261/2015 and the same was made over

to this court for disposal according to law.

6. On appearance the accused, the Additional PP opened the case U/sec.226 Cr.P.C.

7. Heard the learned Additional PP and the counsel for accused on framing charge.

Charge for the offence U/sec.307 IPC was framed against A1 and A2, read over and explained to them in vernacular for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

8. The prosecution listed 13 witnesses and examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4.

9. The examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

10.Heard the learned Additional PP and Learned Counsel for accused.

11.

3 Of 4SC 261 of 2015 VIII ASJ RR DT

11. The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which they are charged?

12. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 & 2 with a common intention attacked the defacto complainant PW1 and PW2 and PW3 with axe on 05-03-2014 at 1330 hrs at the new plot located at Sadath nagar with an intention to kill them and in that process caused bleeding injuries to them.

13.PW1 is the defacto complainant and one of the three injured in this case. PW2 and

PW3 are said to be the other injured persons. PW1 and PW2 are own brothers and PW3 is the friend of PW1. Admittedly, both the parties are known to each other. The case of the accused is one of total denial of any such incident.

14.It is the evidence of PW1 that about one year back, he went to his land located at

Shaheen nagar at about 1-30pm, at that time some 8 to 10 unknown persons came there and quarreled with him and his brother and his friend Ahmed Ali khan and they beat him and his brother and his friend, they all received injuries, they went to hospital and later police obtained their signatures on white papers and they did not give any complaint against the accused. PW1 further stated that accused are not the persons who beat them.

15.PW2 and PW3 also disposed in a similar manner and both stated that some unknown persons beat them and accused are into the persons who beat them.

16.All PW1 to PW3 were declared hostile and were permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. However, in their cross-examination nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited. As all the material witnesses including the defacto complainant and the two other injured turned hostile, the evidence of the remaining witnesses is closed as no useful purpose will be served in summoning them.

17.The above discussion shows that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 for the offences for which they are tried or for any other offence.

18.IN THE RESULT, A1 & A2 are found Not Guilty for the offence U/sec.307 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 & 2 shall stay in force for six months from today.

Typed and Corrected by Me. Pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 18th day of

February, 2016.

4 Of 4SC 261 of 2015 VIII ASJ RR DT

VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 : Mohd Ibrahim-Nil- PW2 : Mohd Ismail PW3 : Ahmed Ali Khan

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signarure of PW1 on complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. B. PRATHIMA, B.L., LL.M.

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge

Rangareddy District

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2016

S.C.No. 261 of 2015

Name of the Complainant PS Pahadishareef

Name of the A1. KM Hassan Shareef, S/o KM Subhan Shareef, Age: 27 years, Occ: Private Employee Accused

A2. KM Hyder Shareef, S/o KM Subhan Shareef, Age; 20 Years, Occ: Student.

R/o H.No.7-94, Subhan Colony, Balpur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R District.

Charge U/Sec.307 R/W 34IPC

Crime No.91/2004

Plea of the AccusedNot Guilty

Finding of the CourtNot Guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused is found Not Guilty for the offence U/Sec.307 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted byAddl Public Prosecutor

Defence Conducted byG. Narasimha Advocate

This case was committed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad LB Nagar

RR Dt. vide PRC 41/2014.

This case having come before me on the 15th day of February, 2016 for final hearing in the presence of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. Accused 1 & 2 stand tried for the offence u/sec 307 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Pahadishareef laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that he received a complaint from the defacto complainant on 05-3-2014 2 Of 4SC 261 of 2015 VIII ASJ RR DT at 6 pm complaining that the complainant and his partners purchased plot at Sadath Nagar admeasuring 400 Sq yd from Hassan Shareef and Hyder Shareef and got registered the land in their names and they paid thte total amount to them but they did not give the possession to them and on 05-03-2014 at 1300 hrs, complainant and his brother Ismaila and his partner Ahmed Ali khan went to said plot and were performing pooja for construction and at 1330 hrs, the accused Hassan Baa and Hydera Shareef and their followers came with deadly weapons i.e. axe and attacked them with an intention to kill them due to which they received bleeding injuries and sought to take action.

3. Basing on this complainant, a case in Cr. N0 91/2014 was registered U/S 307

IPC. During the course of investigation, the statements of the defacto complainant and other witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and produced before the court, and on completion of investigation a case was made out against the accused for the offence under section 307 IPC and charge sheet was filed.

4. Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused by the XV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, RR District vide PRC 41/2014.

5. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Hon'ble Metropolitan

Sessions Court, where it was registered as SC No.261/2015 and the same was made over

to this court for disposal according to law.

6. On appearance the accused, the Additional PP opened the case U/sec.226 Cr.P.C.

7. Heard the learned Additional PP and the counsel for accused on framing charge.

Charge for the offence U/sec.307 IPC was framed against A1 and A2, read over and explained to them in vernacular for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

8. The prosecution listed 13 witnesses and examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4.

9. The examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

10.Heard the learned Additional PP and Learned Counsel for accused.

11.

3 Of 4SC 261 of 2015 VIII ASJ RR DT

11. The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which they are charged?

12. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 & 2 with a common intention attacked the defacto complainant PW1 and PW2 and PW3 with axe on 05-03-2014 at 1330 hrs at the new plot located at Sadath nagar with an intention to kill them and in that process caused bleeding injuries to them.

13.PW1 is the defacto complainant and one of the three injured in this case. PW2 and

PW3 are said to be the other injured persons. PW1 and PW2 are own brothers and PW3 is the friend of PW1. Admittedly, both the parties are known to each other. The case of the accused is one of total denial of any such incident.

14.It is the evidence of PW1 that about one year back, he went to his land located at

Shaheen nagar at about 1-30pm, at that time some 8 to 10 unknown persons came there and quarreled with him and his brother and his friend Ahmed Ali khan and they beat him and his brother and his friend, they all received injuries, they went to hospital and later police obtained their signatures on white papers and they did not give any complaint against the accused. PW1 further stated that accused are not the persons who beat them.

15.PW2 and PW3 also disposed in a similar manner and both stated that some unknown persons beat them and accused are into the persons who beat them.

16.All PW1 to PW3 were declared hostile and were permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. However, in their cross-examination nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited. As all the material witnesses including the defacto complainant and the two other injured turned hostile, the evidence of the remaining witnesses is closed as no useful purpose will be served in summoning them.

17.The above discussion shows that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 for the offences for which they are tried or for any other offence.

18.IN THE RESULT, A1 & A2 are found Not Guilty for the offence U/sec.307 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 & 2 shall stay in force for six months from today.

Typed and Corrected by Me. Pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 18th day of

February, 2016.

4 Of 4SC 261 of 2015 VIII ASJ RR DT

VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 : Mohd Ibrahim-Nil- PW2 : Mohd Ismail PW3 : Ahmed Ali Khan

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signarure of PW1 on complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District.