Smt. Ch.ashalatha

Page no.1 of 8 LRA No.01/2015

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, LRAT – CUM - II ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR

Present :Smt.Chiranji Ashalatha Chairman, LRAT-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.

Monday, this the 21 st day of April, 2026

L.R.A.No.1 of 2015

Between:

1.Munavar Jahan Sadiya @ Saida Rub (Died issueless)

2.Syed Ahmed Maqbool, S/o. Lat Syed Abdul Rub (Died per LRs)

3.Laiq Maksood Syed, S/o. Late Maksood Syed,

4.Mrs. Sara Ali, W/o. Mir I Ali, D/o. Late Maksood Syed,

The appellant no.3and4 are being represented by their GPA holder Juttu Venkatamma, D/o. Late J.Ramulu, R/o. Hyderabad.

5.Masroor Ahmed Syed, S/o. Late Syed Ahmed Maqbool, Aged about 60 years, R/o. 28 Winding Lane, Islandia, NY 11749, USA.

6.Fawad Maqbool, S/o. Late Syed Ahmed Maqbool, Aged about 58 years, R/o. 1 Oran Ct. Hauptauge, NY 11788, USA.

7.Mansoor Maqbool, S/o. Late Syed Ahmed Maqbool, Aged about 56 years, R/o. 45 SEUSING Blvd Hauptauge, NY 11788, USA.

The appellant no.5to7 are being represented by their GPA holder Juttu Venkatamma, D/o. Late J.Ramulu, R/o. Hyderabad.

(The appellant no.5to7 are being the Lrs of appellant no.2 are added as per the orders passed in IA No.451/2022 dated 08.08.2022) … Appellants

Page no.2 of 8 LRA No.01/2015

AND

The State of Telangana Rep. by its authorized officer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy District Office at R.R.District Collectorate, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. … Respondent

APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 30.07.2014 IN FILE NO.P/1933/1975 ON THE FILE OF LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL

CUM R.D.O, CHEVELLA DIVISION, HYDERABAD

Between:

1.Munavar Jahan Sadiya @ Saida Rub, D/o. Late Syed Abdul Rub and Badrunnisa Begum, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat no.104-B, Akbar Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2.Syed Ahmed Maqbool, S/o. Lat Syed Abdul Rub Aged about 70 years, R/o. Flat no.104-B, Akbar Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Presently at USA.

3.Laik Maqsood Syed, S/o. Late Syed Mohd. Maqbool, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Flat no.104-B, Akbar Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Presently at USA.

4.Mrs. Sara Ali, W/o. Ali, D/o. Late Syed Mohd. Maqbool, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Flat no.104-B, Akbar Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Presently at USA.

The appellant nos.2to4 are being represented by their GPA holder i.e. appellant no.1 Munavar Jahan Sadiya @ Saida Rub D/o. Late Syed Abdul Rub and Badrunnisa Begum Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat no.104-B, Akbar Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad. … Appellants

AND

The State of Telangana Rep. by its authorized officer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. … Respondent

Page no.3 of 8 LRA No.01/2015

This petition coming for final hearing before me in the presence of counsels on record M/s. S.Madhusudhan Reddy, advocate for appellants and of Sri Bachi Reddy, AGP for respondent and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration on this day, this Court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The appellants herein are the legal heirs of original declarant i.e.

Smt. Badrunnise Begum (Late) W/o. Syed Abdul Raheem in file no.P/1933/75. They preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal - cum - RDO, Chevella Division,

Hyderabad dated 30.07.2014in file no.P/1933/75.

2.Key components in back ground of this appeal are as follows: (i)

Originally Smt. Badrunnise Begum (Late) W/o. Syed Abdul Raheem filed declaration under the provisions of APLR (COAH) Act 1973 in respect of agricultural lands stood in her name in Nazeerabad (V) of Pargi (M) and

Allapur (V) of Kulkacherla (M). Initially, she was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 31.8407 SH vide proceedings no.P/1933/75 dated 14.03.78. The declarant and as well the occupants approached the Land

Reforms Tribunal and vide orders dated 30.09.94 in proceedings no.P/1933/75 declarant ceiling was redetermined as surplus ceiling holder to an extent of 13.3828 SH. The legal heirs of declarant again preferred appeal in LRA No.307/94 and an order was passed on 02.12.95 remanding the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal. Later, in pursuance of orders dated 27.07.96 in CC No.P/1933/75 ceiling was redetermined and declared as surplus holder to an extent of 9.5492 SH and requested

Page no.4 of 8 LRA No.01/2015 the concerned RDO to revert the land taken from the declarant, by retaining 9.5492 SH inclusive of assigned lands and further directed the

MRO, Pargi to complete the assignment of balance area of land immediately.

(ii) Upon direction of RDO, Chevella Division, the concerned Mandal

Revenue Officer initiated proceedings by issuing Form I notice under the provisions of AP Assigned land (POT) Act 1977 and passed orders on 23.01.99 for reverting the land to an extent of 17.85 cents in Sy.Nos.82 (7.20), 95(5.28) and 97(5.37) situated at Nazeerabad (V) to Smt.Munavar

Jahan Sadiya @ Sadia Rub, D/o Late Smt Badrunnisa Begum. The assignees from whom the land was ordered to transfer to the declarant preferred appeal and the concerned Joint Collector passed orders dated 23.10.2000 vide proceedings no.E1/1911/99 setting aside the orders of concerned MRO dated 23.1.1999.

(iii) Aggrieved by the said orders, the legal heirs of declarant filed

W.P.No.1929/2001 and the hon'ble High court of AP passed orders on 06.03.2008 setting aside the orders of concerned Joint Collector to the extent of declaration that the respondent no.4and5 (Laxman, S/o.

Sindhya & Andhya S/o Jayaram) therein are entitled to retain possession of the land and that the petitioners/appellants herein are entitled only to receive compensation in lieu of possession. Further, the hon'ble High court directed the concerned RDO to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for redelivery of the land in excess of 9.5492 SH in terms of rule

Page no.5 of 8 LRA No.01/2015 10(a) of the rules, without being influenced by any of the findings given by the concerned joint collector in order dated 23.10.2000. The hon'ble High court directed the concerned RDO to complete this exercise within three months, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them.

(iv) Thereafter, the concerned RDO passed impugned order dated 30.07.2014 with an observation that on receipt of reports from the

Tahsildar, Kulkacherla dated 18.06.2014, an extent of Ac.76.38 cents of land in Sy.No.31 which is a part of surplus land taken over is re- transferred to the LR's of Smt Badrunisa Begum and possession was delivered vide proceedings in Lr.No.612/14 dated 28.05.2014 under a panchanama, further in spite of request made to the land holders to furnish the list of survey numbers they wish to resume, they did not furnish the list of survey numbers, therefore ordered to re-transfer remaining area in specific survey numbers under rule 10(A) of AP Land

Reforms (COAH) Rules, 1974.

3.Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.07.2014, the appellants preferred the present appeal on specific grounds as follows: (i) The impugned order is passed without following the prescribed procedure.

The Tribunal below has passed the orders in a hurried manner in order to avoid the consequences in Contempt case no.218 of 2014 pending

before the hon’ble High court of Telangana. In spite of orders passed by

the Hon'ble high court of AP in WP No.1929 of 2001 the tribunal failed to

Page no.6 of 8 LRA No.01/2015 revert land admeasuring Ac.7-20 gts in Sy.No.82 situated at Nazeerabad (V) of Pargi (M).

(ii) Further, the tribunal failed to delete ‘Pote Kharab’ land to an extent of

Ac.50.85 cents in Sy.No.31 of Allapur (V) of Kulkacherla (M) from surplus land of the declarant as per the provisions of the Act. The said land covered with hill rocks, huge stones, boulders and Nala is not suitable for cultivation. In fact it is also admitted by the concerned MRO in his letter

dated 23.04.1993. Therefore, the orders passed including the said Pot

Kharab land is liable to be set aside. Furthermore, the tribunal made a wrong computation, without following mandatory provisions of the act, in respect of land to an extent of Ac.3-30 gts in Sy.No.52, in fact, the said land was transferred to the protected tenant by issuing 38-E certificate.

The impugned order is erroneous.

4.Respondent/state opposed the contentions of the appellants.

5.I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the impugned order passed by theLRT dated 30.07.2014 in file No.P/1933/75warrants any interference as prayed for?”

7.POINT: (i) As per the record originally land in Sy.no.31 was deleted from the holding of surplus land by the deceased declarant. After remanding the matter, the concerned LRT enquired afresh and passed orders on 27.07.1996 in which land to an extent of Ac.667-25 guntas in

Sy.no.31 was included in holding of land by the declarant. Even the

Page no.7 of 8 LRA No.01/2015 concerned RDO categorically stated in his orders passed on 19.5.2014, by referring the report submitted by the concerned Tahsildar dated 05.05.2014, that surplus lands to an extent of Ac.76-15 guntas in

Sy.no.31 is unfit for cultivation and also no one is in possession of the land and the same to be reverted. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the potkharab land is not a land within the definition of land as per section 3(j) of A.P.Land Reforms (COAH) Act, but the concerned RDO again referred the land in Sy.no.31 as a part of surplus land taken from the declarant and it is re-transferred to the LR of declarant under a panchanama.

(ii) Admittedly, the hon’ble High court of A.P. passed orders in

W.P.no.1929/2001 setting aside the orders passed by the concerned Joint

Collector dated 23.10.2000, with a specific direction to consider the claim of the parties for redelivery of the land in excess of 9.5492 SH. There is no whisper about redelivery of land in Sy.no.82 to the appellants herein as directed by the hon’ble High court.

(iii)As per the appellants the tribunal made a wrong computation in respect of land to an extent of Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.no.52. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the said land was transferred to the protected tenant by issuing 38-E certificate. The appellants produced certified copies of 1-B (ROR) extract relating to the land in Sy.no.52/A. On perusal of those extracts it appears that pattas were issued to third parties. In view of section 13 of A.P.Land Reforms

Page no.8 of 8 LRA No.01/2015 (COAH) Act, it is opined that the tribunal ought to have considered issuing pattas to third parties while passing impugned order.

(iv)In view of the above circumstances, it is opined that this is a fit case to remand the matter to the concerned tribunal to reconsider the nature of land while computing and reverting the excess land taken from the declarant in excess of standard holding of 9.5492 SH.

8.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the concerned tribunal for fresh disposal, with a direction to consider the nature of land and the contentions of the appellants and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2026.

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXX CHAIRMAN, LRAT– CUM– II ADDL.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined -NIL- -Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXX CHAIRMAN, LRAT– CUM– II ADDL.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR.

Corrections carried out

Page no.1 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Smt. Chiranji Ashalatha.,

Chairman-MACT-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Tuesday, this the 21 st day of April, 2026

M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019

Between: Koduri Srinivas, S/o. Venkatesham, Aged 40 years, Occ: Lab Asst in Sanskruthi Engineering College, R/o. H.No.9-6-10/6/1, SGR Colony, Champapet, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. …Petitioner AND

1.Pollakottu Krishnaiah, S/o. Chinna Kondanna, Aged 33 years, Occ: Home Guard (HG-123), R/o. Swaroop Nagar, Uppal, Medchal District.

2.Mrs. Deekonda Nirmala, W/o. Somaiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Owner of Crime vehicle no.TS-08-ER 6771, R/o. H.No.9-3-36, VSN Gardens, Nagaram, Keesara, Ranga Reddy District.

(The case against respondent no.1and2 is dismissed for default)

3.Orintal Insurance Company Limited, Flat no.302, 3rd Floor, A1-Karim Trade Centre, Opp. Ranigunj Bus Depot, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500003.

...Respondent

This petition coming for final hearing before me on 16.03.2026 in the presence of counsels on record Sri P.Rajender Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and Sri A.Padma Reddy, Advocate for respondent no.3 and after hearing them having stood over to this day for consideration, this Tribunal has made the following:-

::O R D E R::

This is a claim filed U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 475(1)

A.P.M.V Rules 1989 read with section 140(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 for grant of

Page no.2 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019 compensation for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.

2.The petitioner’s case, in brief, is as follows: (i) On 23.01.2019 at about 1450 hours he along with Kata Kiran Kumar was going to Geethanjali College in Cheeyal (v) on Activa bike bearing no.TS-08-FV-8307 to attend their personal work. When they reached Keesara Chowrasta the respondent no.1 drove one Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed them, due to which the petitioner fell down and received severe injuries. He was shifted to Yashoda hospital, Secunderabad and got treatment as an inpatient for one month and was discharged on 02.02.2019. On 24.01.2019 a case in Cr.No.35/2019 was registered u/s 338 of IPC and section 196 MV Act in P.S., Keesara and thereafter charge sheet was filed for offence u/s 338 IPC.

(ii)The petitioner was about 44 years old at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy. He was working as Lab Assistant in Sanskruthi

Engineering College, Ranga Reddy District. After the accident, he is being affected badly in his intestine machinery and frequently falling down on floor.

He requires constant medical treatment. The doctors who treated him advised ortho surgery and plastic surgery to his scalp and it costs around

Rs.7,00,000/-. Due to the said accident, he was bedridden for two months.

His family effected badly and he could not be able to manage as earlier. He

Page no.3 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019 could not be able to move without an attendant. He suffered much mental agony which cannot be measured in terms of money. His future prospects affected badly. The said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. The respondent no.1, being driver of offending vehicle, the respondent no.2, being owner of offending vehicle, and the respondent no.3, being insurer of the said vehicle, are, jointly and severally, liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner herein. Hence, this petition.

3(i)The petitioner failed to deposit process to issue notice to the respondent no.1and2, therefore the petitioner’s case is dismissed against the respondent no.1and2 for default.

3(ii)The respondent no.3 denied the involvement of offending vehicle i.e.

Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 in the alleged accident. The petitioner’s age, occupation and his income are denied. The respondent no.3 denied the alleged accident and their liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The respondent no.3 contends that the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 was not having a valid driving license at the relevant time of accident and the respondent no.2 knowingly allowed the respondent no.1 to drive the vehicle at the relevant time of accident.

4.On the basis of above rival pleadings and material on record, the following issues were framed:

Page no.4 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019

1)Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 and the petitioner sustained severe injuries?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom he is entitled to claim ?

3)To what relief ?

5.In his support, the petitioner examined himself as Pw1 and Exs.A1to8 are marked. ExB1 is marked in support of the respondent no.3. No oral evidence is adduced in support of the respondent no.3.

6.I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Written arguments were submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the material on record.

7.Issue no.1: (i) The petitioner’s case is that on 23.01.2019 while he along with Kata Kiran Kumar was going on Activa bike bearing no.TS-08-FV- 8307, the respondent no.1 drove Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER- 6771 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed them, due to which the petitioner fell down and received severe injuries. The respondent no.3 denied the occurrence of alleged accident.

(ii)From Ex.A3 i.e. certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.35/2019, it appears that after the alleged accident, a case was registered against the driver of

Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 i.e. the respondent no.1 herein. Ex.A4 is certified copy of charge sheet.Ex.A3and4 prima facie lend support to the case of the petitioner with regard to the involvement ofvehicle

Page no.5 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019 viz Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 and the motor vehicle bearing no.TS-08-FV-8307 in specific accident.

(iii)The petitioner as Pw1 reiterated his claim and deposed as to how the accident was occurred. The respondent no.3 contends that the respondent no.1 had no valid driving license at the relevant time of accident and the respondent no.2 knowingly allowed him to drive. Pw1 specifically denied any negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle on which he was going.Further, during cross examination nothing contrary is elicited from Pw1 in support of respondents’ specific plea in that regard. The respondent no.3 failed to produce any scrap of record that the rider of bike on which the petitioner was going had no driving license at the relevant time of accident.

(iv)Further, as per the petitioner he sustained injuries and got treatment in

Yashoda hospital, Secunderabad. Ex.A1is discharge summary.However,for the best reasons known to the petitioner, he even failed to deposit process to issue notices to the respondent no.1and2. He did not make any efforts to restore his claim against the respondent no.1and2. In their absence, the negligence of respondent no.1and2 can not be decided as they are not given any opportunity to deny allegations made against them.Therefore, it is held that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the respondent no.1’s rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e.

Mahindra TUV 100 bearing no.TS-08-ER-6771 and the petitioner sustained injuries in that accident. This issue is answered accordingly.

Page no.6 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019

8.Issue no.2 and 3: (i) As per the petitioner he was shifted to Yashoda hospital and got treatment for two months and even after treatment he is suffering a lot and doctors advised further surgeries which costs of

Rs.7,00,000/-. As per the petitioner he incurred amount for getting treatment.

The petitioner produced bills under Ex.A2,6 and 8for an amount of

Rs.6,21,584/-. ExA1 is original discharge summary of Yashoda hospital. But he did not get examine doctor who treated him to prove the medical record produced by him. Further, he even failed to get examine doctor who suggested further surgeries. He further failed to produce any scrap of record showing that he needs further treatment.

(ii)As per the petitioner he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as a lab assistant in Sanskruthi Engineering college. The petitioner failed to produce any scrap of record in proof of his employment and income. However, in view of the petitioner’s age, his income can be taken minimum as Rs.15,000/- per month.

(iii)(a) The petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. As per the petitioner the respondent no.1, being driver of offending vehicle, the respondent no.2, being owner of offending vehicle, and the respondent no.3, being insurer of offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. Ex.B1 is copy of insurance policy. The respondent no.3 denied their liability.

Page no.7 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019

(iii)(b) On perusal of ExB1 it is clear that the policy under ExB1 is related to the vehicle i.e. Honda Activa 4G on which the petitioner was traveling at the relevant time of accident. Of course, as per Ex.B1 the policy was in force as on the date of accident.It is pertinent to say here that on perusal of Ex.A4 it appears that the driver of offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 herein is made responsible for causing the accident. A claimant who has elected to pursue a claim based on fault liability can not switch to or claim compensation under no fault liability u/s 163-A or 140 of the MV act. They are distinct, mutually exclusive remedies. If a claim u/s 140 is made, fault need not be proven, but it can not be combined with a claim requiring negligence proof.

(iv)In view of Ex.B1 and in view of the answer given to issue no.1, it is held that the petitioner failed to prove his claim. For the reasons recorded supra, this issue is answered holding that the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation as sought for. Issues are answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on 21stday of April, 2026.

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXX

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-II ADJ,

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:- For Respondent:-

Pw1: Konduri Srinivas -Nil-

Page no.8 of 8 M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A1: Original Discharge summary of Yashoda Hospital (9 Sheets) Ex.A2: Original Payment receipt to Yashoda Hospital (25 sheets). Ex.A3: CC of FIR in Cr. No. 35 of 2019 along with complaint. Ex.A4: CC of charge sheet. Ex.A5: Photographs (2 in No.) along with CD. Ex.A6: Medical bill cum receipt (Out patient receipts) (3 in No.) Ex.A7: Original Aadhar card of PW1 Ex.A8: Pharmacy bills (3 in No.)

For Respondent:-

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Insurance policy.

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXX

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-II ADJ,

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Corrections carried out

Page no.1 of 7 LRA No.01/2016

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, LRAT – CUM - II ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT

L.B.NAGAR

Present :Smt.Chiranji Ashalatha Chairman, LRAT-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.

Friday, this the 24 th day of April, 2026

L.R.A.No.1 of 2016

Between:

1.A.Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Age 75 years, R/o. H.No.3-5-906/1. Flat No.101, Mithila Apartments, Himayathnagar Hyderabad.

2.A.Prasanna Reddy, W/o. A.Mahender Reddy, (D/o. A.Ramchandra Reddy), Age 47 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.12-5-21, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad.

3.K.Prathibha Reddy, W/o. K.Rajashekar Reddy, (D/o. A.Ramchandra Reddy), Age 43 years, Occ: Housewife, Rep. by Prasanna Reddy (appellant no.2), R/o. 7036 SAUSALITO AVE, WEST HILLS, CA 91307, USA. H.No.3-5-906/1, Flat No.101, Mithila Apartments, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

4.K.Praveena Reddy, W/o K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, (D/o. A.Ramchandra Reddy), Age 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 7109 SALE AVE, WEST HILLS, CA 91307, USA H.No.3-5-906/1, Flat No.101, Mithila Apartments, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. … Appellants AND Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, R.R. District Hyderabad, West Division. … Respondent

Page no.2 of 7 LRA No.01/2016

APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 30.09.1977 IN C.C.NO.444/W/1975 ON THE FILE OF LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL,

HYDERABAD WEST DIVISION.

Between:

A.Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Age 75 years, R/o. H.No.3-5-906/1. Flat No.101, Mithila Apartments, Himayathnagar Hyderabad. … Declarant

AND

Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, R.R. District Hyderabad, West Division. … Respondent

This petition coming for final hearing before me in the presence of counsels on record M/s. T.Surya Megha, advocate for appellants and of Sri Bachi Reddy, AGP for respondent and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration on this day, this Court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The appellants preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West Division dated 30.09.1977in C.C.No.444/W/75.

2.Key components in back ground of this appeal are as follows: The appellant no.1 herein is the declarant in CC.No.444/W/75. The appellant no.1 was originally declared as surplus holder by 1.7066 Standard

Holdings (SH) vide orders dated 19.11.1976. The appellant no.1 preferred appeal in LRA No.188/1977 and the same was allowed by remanding the matter to lower tribunal. Thereafter, the appellant no.1’s holding was re- determined as 0.4747 S.H. as on the notified date 01.01.1975, in pursuance of orders dated 30.09.1977 in CC No.444/W/75. Accordingly,

Page no.3 of 7 LRA No.01/2016 land to an extent of Ac.28-48 guntas in Sy.No.24 at Peerancheru (V) of

Hyderabad West Taluq, R.R. District was selected towards surplus holding of the appellant no.1 vide orders dated 12.04.1979 in CC

No.444/W/75 passed u/s 10 of the said Act.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.09.1977, the appellants preferred the present appeal on specific grounds as follows: All the lands computed to the holding of the appellant no.1 are the properties inherited from his father Late Venkat Reddy. Late Venkat reddy died in the year 1966. He survived by his wife Sitamma and three sons viz A.Raji Reddy (declarant in 448/W/75), A.Gopal Reddy (declarant in 442/W/75) and

Ramchandra Reddy (appellant no.1 herein and declarant in 444/W/75).

Sitamma succeeded 1/4th share in all the lands declared by the appellant no.1 and his brothers. Though, Sitamma was holding 1/4th share in the properties of late Venkat Reddy as on the notified date 01.01.1975, her holding was not excluded from the computation of appellant no.1 and his brothers. Sitamma died on 09.04.1981. Therefore, the determination of holding of the appellant no.1 is bad, illegal and contrary to law. If the share of Sitamma which she was holding as on 01.01.1975 is excluded from the holding of the appellant no.1, he will be non-surplus holder of any land. Thus, the impugned orders of the Tribunal below is contrary to law and facts. The tribunal below failed to appreciate that the lands computed to the holding of the appellant no.1 and his brothers are inherited from their father and late Venkat Reddy left his wife Sitamma

Page no.4 of 7 LRA No.01/2016 and three sons as class-l heirs. The tribunal below failed to appreciate that the succession rights are vested rights and the tribunal below failed to see that Sitamma is entitled for a holding in the properties of her husband late Venkat Reddy.

4.The respondent filed counter as follows: (i) The orders passed on 30.09.1977 attain finality vide orders dated 12.04.1979. The Tribunal has already taken possession of specific land on surrender of the same by the appellant no.1. The appellant no.1,3and4 have also received compensation as per Award passed vide Lr.No.I/4604/92 dated 31.08.1996. After lapse of 30 years, the present appeal is preferred.

(ii) After the death of Venkat Reddy, the appellant no.1 and his brothers divided the deceased estate and as per the partition the appellant no.1 and his brothers filed individual declarations in 442/W/75, 442/W/75, 444/W/75 and 448/W/75. After verifying the report and due enquiry, the declarants were declared as surplus holders. The appellant no.1 surrendered the surplus land. The Government acquired a part of land in Sy.No.24 in Peeram Cheruvu for AP Police Academy. Brothers and mother of the appellant no.1 filed separate declarations before Urban

Land Ceiling Authorities under ULC Act vide proceedings no.D1/6231 to 6234, 6197 to 6200/76 and 164/81. ULC authorities clarified vide orders

dated 03.12.1994. Though the appellant no.1,3and4 and mother of the

appellant no.1 Seethamma were parties to the Land acquisition proceedings before ULC, Smt.Seethamma never claimed her rights

Page no.5 of 7 LRA No.01/2016 during her lifetime. The appellants also never questioned the proceedings.

(iii) After the lapse of 30 years, since they did not succeed in getting land facing road which leads to Chevella main road as an exchange in LRA

No.8/2003 the appellants preferred this appeal. This appeal is barred by law. The appellant no. 1. 3 & 4 have taken the compensation and enhanced amount vide Award Lr.No.I/4604/92 dated 31.08.1996. Hence, this appeal is not valid and liable to be rejected.

5.I have heard both sides. The counsel for the appellants filed written submissions. I have perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the impugned order passed by theTribunal dated 30.09.1977 in file No.444/W/75warrants any interference as prayed for?”

7.POINT: (i) After remanding the matter, the concerned LRT enquired afresh and passed orders and in pursuance of impugned order dated 30.09.1977 in CC No.444/W/75, the appellant no.1’s holding was re- determined as 0.4747 S.H. as on the notified date 01.01.1975.

Admittedly, land to an extent of Ac.28-48 guntas in Sy.No.24 at

Peerancheru (V) of Hyderabad West Taluq, R.R. District was selected towards surplus holding of the appellant no.1 vide orders dated 12.04.1979 passed u/s 10 of the said Act.

(ii) The appellant no.1 is original declarant. The appellant no.2to4 are the daughters of appellant no.1. The appellants contention is that they all

Page no.6 of 7 LRA No.01/2016 constitute Hindu undivided family and recently when the appellant no.1 proposed for division of properties and on examining records pertaining to the proceedings of the concerned LRT, they learnt that they were adversely effected by the determination of the holding of their father i.e.

the appellant no.1 herein in impugned order. Their specific case is that father of the appellant no.1 died leaving his wife Seethamma and three sons and while computing the surplus land, the concerned LRT did not appreciate that Sitamma was holding 1/4th share in the properties of late

Venkat Reddy as on the notified dated 01.01.1975, if her holding was considered, the appellant no.1 would be non-surplus holder of any land.

The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the mother of appellant no.1 was class-I heir as per the provisions of Hindu succession act.

(iii) It is not denied that after passing impugned order, land to an extent of

Ac.28-48 guntas in Sy.No.24 at Peerancheru (V) of Hyderabad West

Taluq, R.R. District was selected towards surplus holding of the appellant no.1 vide orders dated 12.04.1979 passed u/s 10 of the Act and the appellant no.1 surrendered the same. The respondent/state contends that the appellants also received compensation and even enhanced amount, but they never raised any such objection. The respondent specifically took a plea that the mother of the appellant no.1 Seethamma never claimed any right against the holding of the appellant no.1 and his brothers. It is not denied that Seethamma was a party in proceedings

Page no.7 of 7 LRA No.01/2016

before the ULC authorities. Admittedly, the appellant no.1 and his

brothers submitted individual declarations before the concerned authorities. There is no scrap of record that Seethamma claimed any right during her life time or raised any objection to the declarations given by appellant no.1 and his two brothers.

(iii) Further, appellant no.1 and his brothers declarations submitted way back in the year 1975 that they took equal shares of their father’s property now operate as an estoppel to take contradictory statement that their deceased mother also had share. In circumstances, it is opined that this appeal is an attempt to avoid delivery of surplus land and that too after 30 years. There must be an end to the litigation. The parties should not be permitted to bring fresh litigation by changing their view from time to time.

In view of all the above, it is held that there are no warranting circumstances to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this point is answered against the appellants.

8.In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXX CHAIRMAN, LRAT– CUM– II ADDL.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined -NIL-

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXX

CHAIRMAN, LRAT– CUM– II ADDL.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR

Page No.1 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2026 in Cr.No.67 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

Present: Sri Vinod Kumar, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. I/C II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Wednesday, on this the 13 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2026

In

Cr. No.67 of 2026

(Police Station Chaitanyapuri)

Between:

Yerra Pradeep, S/o. Yerra Shiva Kumar, Aged 25 years, Occ: Mee Show Delivery Boy, Caste: SC (Madiga), R/o. Near Ambedkar Statue, Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet Old Village, Uppal (M), Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

…… Petitioner/Accused no.3 AND The State through Police Station Chaitanyapuri Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.

….. Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 13.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S.S.Vara Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner/accused no.3 and of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State and having heard the matter and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed under section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused no.3 in crime no.67 of 2026 of Police

Station Chaitanyapuri registered for the offence punishable under sections 118(2), 115(2) r/w 3(5) BNS.

Page No.2 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2026 in Cr.No.67 of 2026

2.As per the prosecution on 15.01.2026 at 1720 hours on lodging report by defacto complainant/Smt. Channam Lalitha, the present crime was registered for the offences viz grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons i.e., stones. During investigation the investigation officer recorded statements of few witnesses and apprehended accused no.2 and 4 and got remanded them to judicial custody.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused no.3 submitted that the petitioner was brutally assaulted by the complainant’s group and the petitioner is undergoing intensive medical treatment at a private hospital for grievous injuries sustained by him during the same incident. He further submits that the incident occurred only due to heated altercations with the petitioner herein over a motorcycle key dispute by the complainant’s sons and their associates and the act of the accused is only to protect themselves from the violence initiated by other party. He also submits that the petitioner has no criminal history and undertakes to abide with the conditions imposed by this court.

4.Notice is given to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and she opposed granting the relief by contending that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of repeating similar type of offence and as well threaten the witnesses. She also contends that the accused may not cooperate the investigating authorities.

5.I have heard both sides and perused material on record.

6. Now, the point for determination is : Whether the petitioner/accused no.3 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as prayed for ?

Page No.3 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2026 in Cr.No.67 of 2026

7. POINT :The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and in fact the petitioner was brutally assaulted by the complainant’s sons and their friends, who were in an inebriated state. Further submitted that the petitioner is undergoing intensive medical treatment in a hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the incident and the petitioner undertakes to abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by this court and he also produced medical record and photographs in his support. A perusal of record reveals that accused no.2 and 4 were already enlarged on bail by the trial court and accused no.1 was granted pre-arrest bail in the month of

March. Considering the circumstances that substantial investigation is already completed and other accused were already enlarged on bail, custodial investigation of this petitioner/accused no.3 is no more required for completing remaining part of investigation. In these circumstances, this court is inclined to allow the petition.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed directing the petitioner/accused no.3 to surrender before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate within 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender the concerned Magistrate is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail, on his executing personal bond for

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate and the petitioner/accused no.3 shall attend before the SHO, P.S.Chaitanyapuri on every second Monday of the month in between 10:00 a.m to 01:00 p.m for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier. Further,

(i)The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the police during the investigation.

Page No.4 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2026 in Cr.No.67 of 2026 ii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature or any offence.

iii)The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

iv)The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

v)The petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction without taking permission from the court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 13thday of May, 2026.

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I/C II Addl. District and Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Copy to:

1)The IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

2)The State through Police Station Chaitanyapuri.

3)The petitioner/accused no.3 through counsel on payment of usual charges.

Page No.1 of 3 Crl.M.P.No.691 of 2026 in Cr.No.628 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

Present: Sri Vinod Kumar, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. I/C II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Tuesday, on this the 12 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.691 of 2025

In

Cr. No.628 of 2025

(Police Station Pahadishareef)

Between:

Rakan Samah, S/o. Late Samah Masroor, Aged 22 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.18-1-350/A/35/1, Phoolbagh, Chandrayangutta, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. …… Petitioner/Accused No.8 AND The State through Police Station Pahadishareef Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.

….. Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 11.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Vikas Madhikar, Advocate for the petitioner/accused no.8 and of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State and having heard the matter and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused no.8 under section 483 of BNSS seeking a bail in Crime No.628 of 2025 of Police Station

Pahadishareef registered for the offence punishable under section 103 r/w 3(5)

BNS.

2.As per the prosecution on 14.12.2025 at 0300 hours on lodging report by complainant/Shaik Fareed who is elder brother of deceased, the present crime

Page No.2 of 3 Crl.M.P.No.691 of 2026 in Cr.No.628 of 2025 was registered for the offence i.e. murder of deceased Shaik Amer. During investigation the investigation officer recorded statements of few witnesses including eyewitnesses and apprehended accused no.1 to 9 and CCL boy and got remanded them to judicial custody.

3.The petitioner/accused no.8 contends that the allegations of the prosecution are all false, baseless and made only to implicate the petitioner in this case. Further, he submits that there is no overt acts attributed to this petitioner as he did not involve physically in attacking the deceased, except that he participated in criminal conspiracy with other accused. It is also submitted that entire investigation is completed and filed charge sheet. Further, the mother of the petitioner is suffering with old age ailments and the petitioner also undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this court.

4.Notice is given to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and she filed counter by opposing granting the relief by contending that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of repeating similar type of offence and as well threaten the witnesses, further he may also tamper the evidence and the acts of the accused persons created panic, fear and a sense of insecurity among the local residents. She further submits that the investigation is pending and accused no.10 still absconding.

5.I have heard both sides and perused material on record.

6. Now, the point for determination is : Whether the petitioner/accused no.8 is entitled to the relief as sought for ?

7. POINT :(i) The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no overt acts to this petitioner, except his participation in criminal conspiracy with other

Page No.3 of 3 Crl.M.P.No.691 of 2026 in Cr.No.628 of 2025 accused persons and further, he did not involve in the alleged murder. On perusal of material on record, it appears that as per the prosecution the petitioner played a crucial role in the conspiracy, logistical support, execution assistance, escape facilitation and post offence concealment of material evidence.

(ii)This case was registered for the offence i.e. murder of deceased Shaik

Amer. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. Whereas the learned Addl.P.P. submitted that the petitioner has deliberately used false name to conceal his identity and evade police detention in the present case. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire investigation is completed and also filed charge sheet, there is no whisper from the prosecution regarding filing of charge sheet. However, the learned APP opposed granting bail to the petitioner contending that investigation is still pending and further accused no.10 is still absconding. Considering the submission of learned Addl.P.P and further the gravity of offence, this Court is reluctant to enlarge the petitioner on bail as sought for. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 12thday of May, 2026.

-Sd/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I/C II Addl. District and Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Copy to:

1)The petitioner/accused no.8 through counsel on payment of usual charges.