OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 1
APVS010017432015
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: CH. PAVAN KUMAR, II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Visakhapatnam.
Wednesday, this the 06th Day of May, 2026
Original Suit No. 1212/2015
Between: Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Formerly VUDA), represented by its Secretary Dr. G.C. Kishore Kumar, S/o. Babu Rao, aged 49 years, 8th floor, Udyog Bhavan, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. …Plaintiff
A n d:
1.Golagani Suri Babu, S/o. Late Pothi Naidu, aged 59 years, R/at. Kommadi, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.
2.Golagani Rambabu, S/o. Late Pothi Naidu, aged 57 years, R/at. Kommadi, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.
3.Aarangi Jagadesh, S/o. Appala Naidu, aged 68 years, worked as Estate Officer, R/at. D. No. 1-98-11, LIG-172, Sector V, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.
4.Muddada Alice Manoranjajani, W/o. Not known, aged about 58 years, worked as Tahsildar, LA Section VMRDA presently working as Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Collectorate, Visakhapatnam.
5.Bodigi Pandu Naidu, S/o. Late Pollu Naidu, aged – years, worked as Administrative officer, R/at. D No. 4-51-17/2, Lawsons’s Bay Colony, Visakhapantam – 530 017.
6.Darru Ponnayya, S/o. P. Rama Swamy, aged 66 years, Sr. Assistant, Estate Wing, VUDA, r/at. LIG 101, D. No. 2-18-13, Sector – 6, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
7.Pulla Rama Krishna, S/o. Rama Swamy, aged about 66 years, worked as Senior Assistant Estate Wing, VMRDA under Suspension r/at. D No. LIG 101, D. No. 2-18-13, Sector VI, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
8.B. Sreedhar IAS, S/o. Not known aged about 60 years, District Collector, Rangareddy District, Telangana State.
9.Sontenam Anuradha, W/o. De.S. Chitti Babu, aged 65 years, R/of. 7- 18-5/2, Flat NO. B1, Sagardweepa Apartments, Kirlampurdi Layout,
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 2
Visakhapatnam – 530017.
10. Kattoju Bala Subrahmanyam, S/o. Late K. Sundara Siva Rao, aged 62 years, R/at. 12008, Winterberry lane, Plaint Field IL 60585 USA.
11. B. Puspha Latha, W/o. Late Sri Bodigi Pandu Naidu, aged 70 years, R/at. D No. 4-51-17/2, Lawsons bay Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
12. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Sri Bodigi Pandu Naidu, aged 50 years, R/at. D No. 4-51-17/2, Lawsons bay Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
13. B. Venkata Lakshmi, D/o. Late Bodigi Pandu Naidu, aged 48 years, R/at. D No. 4-51-17/2, Lawsons bay Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
14. B. Ravi Kiran, S/o. Late Sri Bodigi Pandu Naidu, aged 45 years, R/at. D No. 4-51-17/2, Lawsons bay Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
15. Pakalapati Venakta Seeta Rama Raju, S/o. P. Jannadh Raju, aged 61 years, R/at. 16314, WHITEFIELD COURT, CHINO HILLS, CA. 91709, USA represented by its GPA holder Mandapati Bharathi, W/o. Mandapati Seetharama Raju, R/o. D. No. 49-53-15/7, Flat No. 7, Sai Soudha Apartments, Balayyasastri layout, Near IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
16. Pakalapati Sriniwas Surapa Raju, S/o. P. Jagannadha Raju,aged 58 years, R/of. 10308, PINESHADOW DRIVE, APT#109, CHARLOTTE, NC-28262, USA represented by its GPA holder Mandapati Bharathi, W/o. Mandapati Seetharama Raju, R/o. D. No. 49-53-15/7, Flat No. 7, Sai Soudha Apartments, Balayyasastri layout, Near IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
(As per orders dated 05.12.2023 vide IA. No.1383/2023 allowed,
accordingly added the defendant Nos. 15 and 16) …Defendants.
This suit came up before me on 15.04.2026 for final hearing and in the presence of Sri. N. Srinivasa Rao, Ld.Advocate for Plaintiff,and of Sri. J. P Ranga, Ld. Advocate for defendant Nos. 11 to 14 and of Sri. M. Ramka Manohari and Sri. M. Suneel, Ld. Advocates for defendant Nos. 9,10,15 and 16 and whereas defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,6 and 8 remained ex-parte and defendant No. 5 died and upon hearing both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed for the relief of Cancellation of Registered Sale
Deeds, even dated:18.05.2010 executed vide Doc. No. 1465/2010 and 1466/2010 registered with Sub Registrar, Madhurawada, for permanent injunction restraining from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 3 enjoyment of the plaintiff authority, to send a copy of the decree to the office of
Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada and for costs.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:
i.The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority,(VUDA) is an authority and statutory body constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.482, M.A. dt: 17-06- 1978 under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Presently reconstituted as The Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (VMRDA).
ii.The plaintiff by virtue of the powers vested in it under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development)Act, 1975 is empowered to acquire the lands through the government to achieve the objectives defined in Section 5 of the Act and regulations formed there-under as per Section 59 of the AP Urban
Areas (Development) Act, 1975. The plaintiff is entitled to develop residential layouts, formulate Housing Scheme etc. and for the said purpose is empowered to formulate regulations to monitor the said layouts and Housing
Scheme and the said regulations are having statutory force.
iii.The plaintiff has to take up developmental activities in the lands that were alienated or acquired by the Government of A.P. through land Acquisition
Act, 1984 by paying compensation and transferred to the plaintiff and in fact separate land acquisition department was there for the said purpose. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of various layouts situated at Madhurawada,
Paradesipalem and Yendada village in which developed plots are allotted to the defendants 1 and 2 by defendants 3 to 8 illegally.
iv.The plaintiff authority is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of
Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy. No.146/2 of Paradesipalem Village of
Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal of Visakhapatnam District which was handed over to the plaintiff through the proceedings in RC No. 1/2005/SPL/RI
Dt. .12.2005 of the Collector, Visakhapatnam. The Government handed over
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 4 possession of vast extents of land including the land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem Village to the plaintiff for infrastructure development of the area which is statutory function of the plaintiff under AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. The plaintiff developed the above lands and formed various layouts for construction of housing scheme and also formed bulk layouts to cater the needs of all the sections of people of the society and remitted the sale proceeds to the Government of A.P. for its budgetary support. All the above lands are registered as AWD/Hill Poramboke land in the relevant revenue records.
v.The Government has got the right to resume the Government lands once assigned after cancellation of the D-form pattas granted by it for violations of conditions therein. The Government after resuming the above lands and after cancellation of the grants made by it to the various persons handed over advance possession to the plaintiff through the proceedings RC
No. 1/2005/SPL/RI Dt. .12.2005 of the Collector, Visakhapatnam and subsequently the plaintiff sold the laid out plots in public auction.
vi.In pursuance of the orders of the Collector, Visakhapatnam, The Mandal
Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural handed over the vacant land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem village of
Visakhapatnam district to the plaintiff vide delivery receipt in RC No.
1/2005/SPL/RI Dt. .12.2005 of the Collector, Visakhapatnam and the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without threat or hindrance from anybody including the 1st defendant. The plaintiff developed the said land along with other lands situated at Rushikonda which were handed over by the Government and formed Ozone valley layout.
vii.At the time of development process, the defendants 1 and 2 had put in a representation to the plaintiff that the land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem Village was assigned to his father
Pothi Naidu S/o Chinna Atchanna. Defendants 1 and 2 are successors and
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 5 they were in possession of the same and sought compensation by way of alternative site. The defendants 1 and 2 have no right to claim any compensation or alternative sites from the plaintiff in lieu of surrendering assigned land which was already resumed by the Government even if assignments were cancelled. The assignee or his family members are not entitled for any alternative sites more particularly by way of developed plots from the plaintiff either under the prohibition of transfer of Assigned Land Act 1977 or under Land Acquisition Act.
viii.There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 to pay any compensation much less the developed plots and if the
Defendants 1 and 2 have got any grievance he has to work out his remedies against the Government. The subject matter lands are the Govt.AWD lands and handed over possession to the plaintiff by the Government pending alienation Proceedings resuming the land after cancellation of grant of D-Form pattas by following the due process and the said proceeding became final.
ix.There is an established procedure in vogue in the Plaintiff Authority with regard to allotment of developed plots and the same are governed by certain allotment regulations formed under AP Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975 and as per the board resolutions. The disposal of developed plots is the subject matter of the policy decision of the plaintiff's board and never the executive function of the Vice Chairman or any officer of VUDA.
x.The Defendants 1 and 2 have no right or interest in the assigned land belonging to the Government and they cannot transfer the said land to the
Plaintiff Authority and the Plaintiff Authority has not received any right or title under the said transaction and the said transaction is null and void. The plaintiff's erstwhile officers i.e., Defendants 3 to 8 are not competent to allot the plaint schedule properties in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2 and their acts are without any authority or supported by the plaintiff board's resolution.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 6 xi.The defendants 1 and 2 are aware that the lands assigned by the Govt.
are not alienable and the Defendants 3 to 8 are also aware of the provisions of
AP Urban Areas (Development) Act and A.P. Assigned Lands Act, 1977 regulations framed there-under and they are fully aware that the said transaction of allotting plaint schedule properties in favour of the defendants 1and 2 is illegal and against the law and the Defendants 3 to 8 with a malafide intention colluded together and prepared the note file hurriedly and brought into existence of invalid and illegal note order dt:10.05.2010 and the allotment
Proceedings in RC No.11693/A/07/I, dt:10-05-2010 allotting the plot nos.233 & 234 in Sy No. 34/P and 35/P of Rushikonda Village. The plaintiff is yet to develop the layout, as such the plaint schedule plots are not identifiable on the ground. The possession of the plaint schedule properties is with the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are not in possession of the plaint schedule properties.
xii.The then officials of VMRDA have without getting the fact verified from the Revenue Officials and in active collusion with , allotted an alternative land to them in the absence of any policy decision taken by the government and/or any Resolutions of Board of VMRDA. The above fraudulent action caused serious loss and prejudice to the VMRDA. Thus the allotment of alternate land by VMRDA and consequential execution of registered sale deed by VMRDA in favour of such fraudulent persons or their nominees without any consideration is null and void and are liable to be set aside.
xiii.Defendants 1 & 2 have colluded with the defendants 3 to 8 with a view to grab the valuable plaint schedule property of the plaintiff with a view to enrich themselves illegally.
xiv.In pursuance of their malafide intention the 3rd defendant who was the then Estate Officer referred the documents alleged to have been submitted by the 1 defendant to the defendants No.4 to 7 for verification of genuineness of the documents, who are not competent to certify the authenticity of the said
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 7 documents submitted by the 1st defendant. There is a duty cast upon the 5th defendant to direct the defendant No.1 to approach the revenue officials for ascertaining genuineness of the alleged documents for claiming any compensation. The 3rd defendant took up the cause of the defendants 1 & 2 and colluded with other defendants and perpetrated the illegal transaction. The 7th defendant being the Senior Assistant prepared the note file with a view to create illegal transaction in favour of the defendants 1 &2 and the 8th defendant being head of the organization has to verify the correctness of the rule position regarding the subject transaction placed before him, before giving approval which he has not done. There is a clear collusion between defendants 1 to 8 to grab the valuable property of the plaintiff and perpetrate the illegal and invalid transaction in favour of the defendants 1 & 2 thereby causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff's authority.
xv.The registered sale deeds are obtained by defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with the Defendants 3 to 8 by misrepresentation of the facts and by playing fraud. The defendants 1 and 2 did not derive any right or title and sale deeds are not valid under law and the Defendants 3 to 8 have no authority and jurisdiction to allot the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendants 1 and
2. The Defendants 3 to 8 have executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 without board resolution which ipso facto void ab initio against the plaintiff and if the said documents are left outstanding they cause serious injury to the plaintiff and plaintiff is not in a possession to deal with plaint schedule properties. The Defendants 3 to 8 by their illegal acts and collusion with the defendants 1 and 2 have caused huge loss to the plaintiff and also deprived the eligible public of their legitimate right to get the residential plots from the plaintiff. There is no valid transfer of title and the defendants No.1 & 2 do not derive any right in respect of plaint schedule plots as the said sale deed is not supported by any consideration, and the defendants 1 and 2 do not derive any right or title since the said transaction is fraudulent one and the same is opposed to public policy.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 8 xvi.The plaintiff authority came to know about the fraud committed by defendants 1 to 8 only when an adverse news item has been published in local news papers on 22-02-2012 and Principal Secretary to the Government
MA&UD in its letter dt. 07-03-2012 directed the plaintiff authority to submit detailed report and after collecting information about the illegal and unauthorized allotments. The plaintiff authority sent a report to the State
Government vide R.C.No.11693/07/-1, dt. 12-03-2012 and on considering the above report the State Government ordered for a detailed enquiry by the
Vigilance and Enforcement Department through GORT No.341 of MA&UD(H2)
Department dt.21-03-2012 and plaintiff’s Board Passed a Resolution No.54, dt.
05-08-2013 to take action to cancel the illegal and irregular allotments by following the due procedure and the plaintiffs authority issued a show cause notice dt. 21-09 2013 to the defendants 1 &2 through registered post calling for explanation as to why the allotment cannot be cancelled. The defendants 1 & 2 received the same and issued a reply dt 12.10.2013 with false and untenable allegations.
xvii.The plaintiff authority reliably learnt that the defendants 1 and 2 are planning to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property to others to involve the plaintiff in unholy litigation, as such the defendants 1 and 2 may be restrained from alienating or encumbering or making any developments in the suit schedule land. The plaintiff authority also contemplating criminal action against the defendants under appropriate sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Hence, the suit.
3. The 1 st defendant filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint.
i.It is further submitted that defendants 1 and 2 are successors of the original assignee of the land and the government has not cancelled the assignment as alleged by the plaintiff. The assignee of the land can be cancelled by following due process of law and there is no such procedure
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 9 followed by the government in the case of land assigned to the defendants, as such, the question of resumption of land does not arise. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.
ii.The 5th defendant in his written statement contended that he was not working in the concerned department as on the date of approval of note and alleged sale deed. As such, the alleged fraud cannot be attributed to him. It is further submitted that the assignment alleged to have been made in favour of father of defendants 1 and 2 is more than 30 years old as such, the alleged cancellation of assignment by the District Collector is not maintainable, as such, the alleged delivery receipt and proceedings of the District Collector are nothing but records generated by the office of the plaintiff and District Collector with a view to grab valuable property.
iii.It is further submitted that the 5th defendant cannot be made liable for no fault on his part as he was transferred to another department as on the date of alleged transactions. It is further submitted that the allotment in favour of defendants 2 to 4 is in accordance with procedure prescribed, as such, the plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of sale deeds after a lapse of three years.
Therefore the suit is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the plaintiff without pleading the date of assignment and nature of assignment cannot plead that the defendants 1 and 2 do not have right of alienation. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.
3.1. The 9 th defendant filed written statement contending that i.the Secretary, VUDA is not competent to represent the VUDA. By virtue of a Government Order, VUDA is abolished and it is no more in existence and
Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) came into force and the Secretary, VMRDA is not competent to represent the plaintiff.
It is the Commissioner, VMRDA and it is the Vice Chairman, VUDA who are
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 10 competent authorities to represent those organizations. The plaintiff is obliged to bring the said fact to the notice of the Court and it ought to have convinced the Court whether the VUDA is dissolved or abandoned and if it is dissolved whether any rider is provided in the G.O. to safeguard the litigation initiated by the VUDA in Civil Courts.
ii.It is further submitted that the suit in the present form is not maintainable without seeking declaration that the note file approved by 8th defendant, Vice-
Chairman, VUDA is capricious, illegal and invalid and for cancellation of sale deeds which are the outcome of the note filed approved by 8th defendant Vice-
Chairman, VUDA is not maintainable, and the suit is barred as per the provisions of Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC.
iii.It is further submitted that the plaintiff conveniently suppressed the fact that classification of assignments relating to the Government land i.e., defence personnel, assignment to displaced persons and assignment to landless poor and alternative land assigned in case of displaced persons of the assigned land on requisition by any wing of the Government. The Government proposed to hand over the assigned land to the plaintiff for development purposes after resuming the land from defendants 1 and 2. In such a case, the Government ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under law, and without giving notice to the original assignee and without seeking his explanation and without passing a speaking order relating to the cancellation of pattas, the
Government cannot resume the land and any such act of resuming the land without following the above procedure is null and void and non-est in the eye of law.
iv.It is submitted that the plaintiff presumed and assumed that the
Government cancelled the assignment for breach of conditions by the assignees. But the plaintiff did not file any proof for that matter. There is no speck of evidence whatsoever to establish that defendants 1 and 2 or their
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 11 father violated the conditions of assignment. In the case of resuming the assigned land for some other purpose by the Government, the Government is obliged to come up with an alternative to bring succor to the displaced persons and that is the policy of the Government or as per the A.P. Prohibition of
Transfer of Assigned Lands Act. When the patta is cancelled without the fault of the assignee, the Government has to consider issuance of a fresh patta for the land elsewhere or it can propose or recommend the requisition authority to acquire the land assigned and after resumption to hand over the plot after development. Even as per the Allotment of Plots to Land Losers, as per the
A.P. Urban Development Act and G.O. Ms. No.1307 the Government has to give compensation to the land losers. The plaintiff is obliged to allot alternative land or alternatively give developed plot to the land losers. The plaintiff conveniently suppressed those material facts with an ulterior motive and for the reasons best known to it.
v.It is further submitted that the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) issued a certificate that the land was never resumed and D-form patta was never cancelled. Further there is no proceeding whatsoever and the particulars of any such proceeding were not furnished by the plaintiff evidencing that the land was handed over to the plaintiff. That is the reason why the plaintiff took a plea in paragraph (h) of the plaint that the plaint schedule lands are not identifiable on ground and it is not laid out into plots. In fact the said plea is in contrast to the plea taken by the plaintiff in the earlier paragraphs and it denudes the incognito that the plaintiff is not definite where the land is actually situated and whether the land was resumed after cancellation of patta and for that matter the patta was cancelled by following the due process of law.
vi.It is further submitted that when the plaintiff took a plea of fraud and misrepresentation, it is incumbent on the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 4 to furnish all the particulars relating to misrepresentation and fraud, but the plaintiff except taking a bare plea of misrepresentation and fraud, did not
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 12 furnish the particulars how come the fraud is played and what is the misrepresentation said to have been done by defendants 1 and 2 or defendants 3 to 8. In the absence of furnishing those particulars, the said plea of misrepresentation and fraud is of no avail to the plaintiff.
vii.It is further submitted that the Secretary, VUDA, being a subordinate to the Vice-Chairman, VUDA, i.e., 8th defendant, cannot make any allegation or aspersion against his Superior Officer that the Vice-Chairman colluded with defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 3 to 8 and brought into existence a note file for approval and the plots were allotted to defendants 1 and 2. When it is the case of the plaintiff that the land is not identifiable on ground and it is not laid out into plots, how can the plaintiff allot plots in Plot Nos. Nos.233 and 234 to the defendants 1 and 2? So, it is obvious that the pleadings of the plaintiff are mutually destructive subverting the entire contention of the plaintiff. The defendants 3 to 7 are the employees of the plaintiff and 8th defendant is the
Authority representing the plaintiff and till date the plaintiff did not challenge the note file prepared by defendants 3 to 7 and the approval given by the 8th defendant in any competent civil court nor filed any Writ to declare that the proceedings issued by the 8th defendant in pursuance of the note file prepared by the defendants 3 to 7 as null and void and when an order passed by a public authority is not challenged, it is valid and binding irrespective of the fact that it suffers from the vice or irregularity or legality. Moreover, since defendants 3 to 7 are the employees of the plaintiff and the sale deeds were registered by 5th defendant - Administrative Officer of the plaintiff, representing the plaintiff, the plaintiff is estopped from seeking the cancellation of the sale deed without seeking that the note file prepared by defendants 3 to 7 and the approval made by the 8th defendant are null and void.
viii.It is further submitted that the plaintiff allotted the plots to defendants 1 and 2 on 10.05.2010 vide Proceedings in Rc. No.11693/A/07/I-1, dt.10.05.2010 and thereafter the sale deeds were executed by 5th defendant on 18.05.2010
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 13 and the suit was filed five years thereafter and thus the suit is barred by limitation.
ix.It is further submitted that all the proceedings were taken up by the plaintiff in pursuance of the direction given by the Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development, basing on the news item published in the newspapers on 22.02.2012 which is completely hearsay and baseless and do not carry any credence and significance. As seen from the plaint averments and the report addressed to the Principal Secretary to
Government dated 07.03.2012, the plaintiff has knowledge about the sale deeds for which cancellation is sought for and three years of limitation starts from the date of knowledge and it expires on 07.03.2015 whereas the present suit was filed in the Month of September, 2015.
x.It is further submitted that the 9th defendant and her brother i.e., 10th defendant are bonafide purchasers who purchased the plaint schedule land from G.P.A., Chena Narasinga Rao who executed registered sale deeds in their favour on 25.11.2010 for a valuable consideration and have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land ever since they were inducted into possession by defendants 1 and 2 on 25.11.2010.
xi.It is further submitted that as per the Letter No.11693, the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered allotment of 750 Sq. yards of developed plots to land losers/assignees. The 8th defendant implemented the orders of the
Government as per the powers conferred under the A.P. Urban Development
Act for a planned development of plots and after considering the said aspect the Government dropped all further proceedings against 8th defendant, i.e.,
Vice-Chairman, VUDA in 2017. This shows that the note prepared and approved by the defendants was done in accordance with law. In fact, the plaintiff conducted an auction of the government lands and registered the documents directly albeit those lands were not alienated to VUDA by the
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 14
Government and allotment and registrations to the land losers were made on the said understanding. The plaintiff suppressed the aforementioned facts besides the fact that the Lokayukta gave orders to regulate some cases and accordingly, the Government has given orders and third party proceedings were done as per G.O. Ms. No.62 on payment of 7% of the marked value on the consent given by the allottees and the plots allotted to the allottees were registered in favour of the third parties as per GO Ms. No. 62.
3.2.The 10th defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 9th defendant. Defendants 15 and 16 have filed their written statement in similar lines to that of the written statement of the 9th defendant.
4.Having considering the pleadings of both sides, the following Issues are settled for trial on 22.03.2021:
I S S U E S
(1) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 obtained the sale deed dated 18.05.2010 by misrepresentation and by playing fraud as contented by the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of cancellation of sale deed
dated 18.05.2010 in the name of defendants 1 and 2 as prayed for?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (4) To what relief?
4.1.In view of addition of new defendants, issues dated 22.03.2021 are recasted as follows:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 18.05.2010 executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against defendants 1, 2, 9, 10, 15 and 16 as prayed for in respect of the plaint schedule properties?
(3) To what relief?
5.In the course of trial on behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of defendants 9 and 10, DW1 was
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 15 examined and no document was marked. On behalf of defendants 15 and 16,
DW2 was examined and Ex.B1 is marked.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the plaintiff and that of defendants 9, 10, 15 and 16. In spite of giving sufficient time and opportunities, arguments were not advanced on behalf of defendants 11 to 14, as such, the matter was posted for judgment on merits. Perused the record.
ISSUE No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 18.05.2010 executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2?
7.As per the plaintiff authority, the defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with defendants 3 to 8 illegally obtained sale deeds in respect of plaint schedule plots without any manner of right. Further as per the plaintiff the vacant land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem village which defendants 1 and 2 claims to have been assigned to their father Pothi
Naidu, was handed over to the Plaintiff Authority by the revenue authorities pursuant to the Orders of the Collector, Visakhapatnam, as such, defendant 1 and 2 have no right to claim any compensation or alternative site from the
Plaintiff Authority in lieu of the alleged assigned land.
8.On the other hand as per contesting defendants sale deeds in respect of plaint schedule plots were executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by the plaintiff authority after following due procedure and Rules, as such, the same cannot be canceled. As per defendants 9, 10, 15 and 16 they are bonafide purchasers of the plaint schedule plots for consideration. Further that defendants 3 to 9 have not committed any misdemeanor as alleged in the plaint and that they have performed their duties as per established procedure.
9.The Plaintiff Authority to prove its case examined its Estate Officer D.
Laxma Reddy as PW1 and he filed chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the plaint. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked through him. The Plaintiff
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 16
Authority further examined one B. Bhavani Das who previously worked as
Estate Officer in the Plaintiff Authority as PW2 and he filed chief affidavit supporting the case of the plaintiff authority.
10.The main contention of the plaintiff authority is that it has no power to allot alternative land to the land losers as per the provisions of Andhra
Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (In short ‘AP UAD Act’). It is profitable to refer to the relevant provisions of AP UAD Act for better appreciation of the case. Section 5 of APUAD Act deals with object and powers of the authority which reads as thus:
“5. Object and powers of the Authority.
(1)The objects of the Authority shall be to promote and secure the development of all or any of the areas comprised in the development area concerned according to plan and for that purpose, the Authority shall have the power to acquire, by way of purchase or otherwise, hold, manage, plan, develop and mortgage or otherwise dispose of land and other property, to carry out by or on its behalf building, engineering, mining and other operations, to execute works in connection with supply of water and electricity, disposal of sewerage and control of pollution, other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for purposes incidental thereof.
(2)The Authority may, for the purpose of efficient performance of its functions, constitute as many committees as it thinks fit, in such manner as may be prescribed, and provide by regulations made in this behalf for rules of procedure at the meeting of the Committees and allowances to members thereto.” A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the Plaintiff Authority has the power to acquire land by way of purchase or otherwise. Chapter V of AP UAD Act deals with acquisition and disposal of land. Sections 18, 18A & 20 deal with acquisition of land and vacant Government land. The said provisions are reiterated hereunder:
18. Compulsory acquisition of land. (1)If, in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under this Act, the Government may acquire such land under the provisions of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894. (2)Where any land has been acquired by the Government they may, after they have taken possession of the land, transfer the land to the Authority or any local authority for the purpose for which the land has been acquired on
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 17 payment by the Authority or the local authority of the compensation awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the acquisition.
18A. [ Acquisition of land by private negotiations. [Inserted by Act No. 13
of 1988, dated 19.4.1988.] - Where the authority proposes to acquire any land otherwise than under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it shall obtain the previous approval of the District Collector, therefore. While according his approval, the District Collector shall determine the value at which the land is to be acquired and every such acquisition shall be subject to the previous sanction of the Government as may be prescribed.]
20. Government vacant land.
(1)The Government, may by notification and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Authority, place at the disposal of the Authority all or any vacant lands belonging to or under the control of the Government situated in the development area (hereinafter referred to as "Government vacant land") for the purpose of development in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2)No development of any Government vacant land shall be undertaken or carried out except by, or under the control and supervision of, the Authority after such land has been placed at the disposal of the Authority under sub- section (1). (3)After any such Government vacant land has been developed by or under the control and supervision of the Authority, it shall be dealt with by the Authority in accordance with rules made and directions given by the Government in this behalf. (4)If any Government vacant land placed at the disposal of the Authority under sub-section (1) is required at any time thereafter by the Government, the Authority shall, by notification, replace it at the disposal of the Government upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Authority.
11.From the above provisions it is clear that as per Section 18 it is the
Government which has to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and transfer the same to Urban Development Authority or any local authority for the purposes under this Act. As per Section 18-A which deals with acquisition of land by private negotiations, the Urban Development Authority shall obtain the previous approval of District Collector to acquire any land
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 18 otherwise than under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it is the
District Collector who shall determine the value at which the land is to be acquired. Further such acquisition shall be subject to the previous sanction of the Government. As per Section 20 which deals with Government vacant land, the Government subject to terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Government and the authority, place at disposal of the authority all are any vacant lands belonging to or under the control of the Government situated in the development area for the purpose of development in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the Urban Development Authority i.e. VUDA in this case has no power to allot alternative land to the land losers as per Section 18A and the value of compensation shall be determined by the
District Collector for the land acquired by the plaintiff by private negotiations.
12.In the instant case it is not the case of either party that the Plaintiff
Authority acquired the land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by
Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem village from defendants 1 and 2 by private negotiations. As per Ex.A3 Representation, the land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem village was assigned to the father of defendants 1 and 2 by name G. Pothinaidu. However as per the plaintiff the alleged land was resumed by the Government and was handed over advance possession of the above said land to the plaintiff authority vide delivery receipt in R.C.No. 1/2005 Spl. RI, Dt. .12.2005 and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
13.Perusal of Ex.A2/delivery receipt discloses that as per the instructions of the collector, Visakhapatnam, the government land measuring an extent of Ac.
2.32 cents covered by Sy.No.146/1 and 2 of Paradesipalem village was shown to be handed over to the Vice-Chairman, VUDA. It is evident from the record that the plaintiff has not filed any proceedings of the District Collector,
Visakhapatnam in support of Ex.A2 delivery receipt. From the cross examination of Pws 1 and 2, it is clear that they have pleaded ignorance to the suggestions in respect of assignment of land to Pothi Naidu.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 19
14.Further from the cross examination of PW1, it is made clear that there are instances where landloosers of assigned land were given alternative land in lieu of compensation and there is provision for compensation to land loosers in respect of assigned land. Further PW1 pleaded ignorance as to whether the land to an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents covered by Sy.No.146/2 of Paradesipalem village was resumed by the District Collector. He further stated that the
Tahsildhar, Visakhapatnam Rural is the competent person to speak of the resumption of land.
15.The learned counsel for defendants contended that the material particulars of fraud and particulars of alleged collusion between defendants 1 to 8 were not mentioned in the plaint as required under Order VI Rule 4 of
CPC. The learned counsel relied on the decision in A.C. Ananthaswamy v.
Boraya1, whereunder it was held that “Fraud is to be pleaded and proved. To prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in such cases is extremely higher. An ambiguous statement cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation.”
16.He further relied on Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University 2, wherein it was contended that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved.
17.The learned counsel further relied on the decision inPrem Singh and others v. Birbal and others3, where under it was held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed.
“A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the 1 (2004) 8 SCC 588 2 (1976) 1 SCC 311 3(2006) 5 SCC 353
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 20 presumption.” Reiterated in Rattan Singh and Others v. Nirmal Gill and Others4.
18.The learned counsel further relied on the decision in Bishundeo
Narain and another v. Seogeni Rai and others5,where under it was held that “It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud, of which any court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion.”
19.In the instant case, except making a bald statement in the plaint that defendants 1 to 8 have colluded with each other and brought the sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of plaint schedule plots into existence, nothing was pleaded in the plaint with regard to the material particulars of fraud and the manner in which defendants 1 to 8 have colluded with each other in execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2. In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaint lacks the essential contents which are required to be pleaded in the case of fraud. There is no dispute that the sale deeds which are sought to be cancelled are registered documents, as such, there would be a presumption that they are validly executed. Further there is no pleading in the plaint that despite due diligence, the plaintiff authority could not identify the fraud.
Therefore, in view of the above legal position, the discussed aspects are against the plaintiff.
20.Since allotment of plots in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and execution of sale deeds in respect of plaint schedule plots is not in dispute, Exs-A4 to A6 does not require any appreciation. A perusal of Ex.A7 report dated:12-03-2012 4(2020 INSC 641) 5AIR 1951 SC 280
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 21 discloses that the then Vice Chairman, VUDA addressed Letter to the
Government recommending investigation by an independent agency in respect of allotments made by the Plaintiff Authority during the relevant period. In response to the said Letter addressed by the then Vice Chairman of the plaintiff authority, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GO RT NO.341,
dated:21-03-2012 i.e. Ex.A8 initiating detailed enquiry into the irregularities in
allotment of house sites/lands by the Vigilance & Enforcement Department.
Thereafter the Plaintiff Authority passed Ex.A9 resolution for cancellation of irregular allotments pursuant there to Ex.A10 show cause notice was issued to the to show cause as to why the allotments in their favour shall not be canceled. However, the plaintiff has not filed any proof to show that the said show cause notice was served on defendants 1 and 2. The Plaintiff Authority passed Proceedings under Ex.A14 canceling allotment of plots in favour of defendants 1 and 2.
21.The contesting defendants in their respective written statements have taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. Though there is no clarification from the defendants as regards how the suit is barred by limitation, it can be understood from the cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and other circumstances that the suit is claimed to be barred by limitation as the document which is sought to be canceled is of the year 2010, whereas the suit was filed on 15.09.2015 which is beyond the three years period of limitation as prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. As per the plaintiff the suit is filed within limitation.
22.Article 59 of the schedule of Limitation Act deals with limitation in respect of the suits relating to decrees or instruments. The period of limitation for suits to cancel or to set aside an instrument or decree or for the recession of the contract is three years from the time when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or contract rescinded becomes first known to him.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 22
23.It is no doubt true that as per the pleadings and documents filed along with the plaint it was mentioned that the Plaintiff authority came to know about the fraud committed by the defendants through adverse news items published in local newspapers on 22-02-2012. However, on the direction of the
Government, the Plaintiff authority submitted a detailed report on 12-03-2012.
Based on the said report the State Government ordered for a detailed enquiry.
Subsequently a Committee of HOD’s was formed to finalize the allegations and to give report and based on the findings of the said Committee, Resolution
No.54, dated:05-08-2013 was passed where under it was resolved that expeditious efforts should be initiated by the Vice Chancellor to cancel all the allotments which are irregular and allotted without following the proper procedure. Pursuant there to show cause notice was issued, allotment proceedings were canceled and the present suit had been filed.
24.Thus, it is clear that the suit was not filed solely based on the news items published in newspapers on 22-02-2012, but the suit was filed based on the findings of Committee of HOD’s and Resolution No.54, dated:05-08-2013.
The period of limitation of three years provided under Article 59 of the schedule of Limitation Act begins to run from the time when the facts entitling the plaintiff to act as instrument canceled becomes first known to him. Now it is to be seen whether the limitation period under Article 59 starts from the date when the cause of action first accrued to the plaintiff or when the plaintiff acquired full knowledge of the cause of action. In this regard this Court would like to rely on the decision in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. Versus Hitesh
P. Sanghvi & Ors 6 in S.L.P. (C) No.13459 of 2024 decided on 15.04.2025 where under the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 28 held as thus:
“The other contention that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November, 2014, but that was not a complete knowledge as probably he could read the same subsequently. In dealing with the submission, the appellate Court distinguished between “having knowledge” and “full knowledge” to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation 6 (2025 INSC 485)
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 23 as the limitation would reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action. According to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action for the suit had arisen much earlier. Secondly, the plaintiff has not pleaded any date on which he acquired complete knowledge and that such argument is only an afterthought and appears to be a simple creation of the first appellate Court.”
25.In the instant case, perusal of the plaintiff discloses that as per the plaintiff, the alleged fraud came to light by way of adverse news items published in local newspapers on 22.02.2012. However, perusal of ExA7/ report sent by the Vice Chairman, VUDA to the Principal Secretary to
Government of Andhra Pradesh, discloses that under the references in the said letter, a report of the Vice-Chairman, VUDA, Visakhapatnam dated 11.11.2011 was shown as first reference. Thereafter adverse news items of varied dates were shown as the second reference. A perusal of the record discloses that the plaintiff has not filed the said report dated 11.11.2011 shown in Reference 1 in ExA7 report in ascertaining as to when the plaintiff first came to know about the alleged fraud. Even assuming the date of adverse news items, i.e. 22.02.2012 as the date when the plaintiff came to know about the alleged fraud, the suit being filed on 15.09.2015 is way beyond three years period, as such, in view of the above legal position, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the suit is barred by time.
26.The learned counsel for 9th defendant relied on the decision in
R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through LRs & Another v. Rajmani & Others 7 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 20 held as thus:
“20. Limitation, as we generally know is a mixed question of fact and law. However, there is no hard and fast rule that every question of limitation is to be treated as a mixed question of fact and law. In cases, where the action is initiated after several years after the right to sue accrued, without any pleadings to explain the reasons for delay or as to when the fraud was discovered, the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law. A 7 (2025 INSC 478)
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 24 recourse may be had to Order VI Rules 4 and 10 CPC, which mandates that specific particulars would have to be given in the pleadings. Once such a plea is raised in the pleadings, then the burden lies on the person to prove that the delay was due to any plausible reason and it is always well within the knowledge of the other party to contend and prove that the opposite party had prior knowledge about the disputed fact and that his right to sue or defend had also accrued by that date. Even in the absence of specific pleadings regarding the limitation in the plaint or a plea of defense, there is a bounden duty on every civil Court to ascertain as to whether the lis has been initiated within the time prescribed under law, even if the parties to the lis had not raised any objections. This right flows from the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”
27.In view of the above legal position, this court has given a finding on limitation though not an issue was framed on the said aspect.
28.The learned counsel for defendants contended that the plaintiff cannot take the aid of Section 17 of Limitation Act as the plaintiff failed to prove the fraud and that such fraud actually prevented it from knowing its legal remedy.
29.In Santosh Devi Vs. Sunder in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.12658 OF 2025; decided on May 2, 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as thus:
“19. It is not the mere use of general words such as ‘fraud’ that can serve as the foundation for the plea. Such expressions are quite ineffective to give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action.
20. Order VII Rule 6 uses the words “the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed”. The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act are based on certain facts and events. Section 17, with which we are concerned, provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain facts.
21. The matter can also be looked at from a different angle. Assuming for the moment that the defendant was a party to the fraud as alleged relating to the sale transaction, whether the same by itself is sufficient to save limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act. We are of the opinion that the fraud relating to the sale transaction as alleged itself would not help the plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation in this case. As already discussed, under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff should have been kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by means of fraud. We are of the opinion that the
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 25 alleged fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to do with the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of knowledge of his right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed because of fraud.”
30.In the instant case, the plaintiff did not plead that exemption for limitation was sought under section 17 of the Limitation Act. Further there is no evidence from the plaintiff to show that it was kept out of knowledge of its right to sue by means of fraud. In view of the above legal position, the plaintiff cannot contend that the suit is within limitation.
31.The learned counsel for defendants contended that 9th defendant is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, as such, the principles of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to him. Section 43 of the Transfer of
Property Act embodies a rule of feeding the estoppel and in order to get the benefit of the said provision, the following conditions must be satisfied.
1. There was a fraudulent or erroneous representation by the transferor while transferring the property;
2. It was to the effect that the transferor is entitled to transfer the immovable property;
3. The transfer of property must be for consideration, if it is made without consideration then the same will not be considered as valid;
4. The transferor must subsequently acquire some interest in the property which he professed to transfer;
5. The transferee has not rescinded the contract if he does so then no claim can be made by him;
6. The transferee has acted in good faith for consideration and without notice of the rights under the prior transfer.
32.In the instant case, it is not the case of the 9th defendant that the then officials of plaintiff authority have made fraudulent representation while executing the sale deed and that the plaintiff authority subsequently acquired interest in the property. Hence in these circumstances, the concept of feeding the estoppel provided under Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the contention of the counsel for the 9th defendant cannot be accepted and the decision relied on the above aspect does not require any consideration.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 26
33.In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the representation made by defendants 1 and 2 is false. Further, the plaintiff failed to establish the collusion between defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 3 to 8 in allotment of plots to defendants 1 and 2. It is further evident from the record that material particulars of fraud, based on which the suit has been filed are not pleaded in the plaint as required under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. Further, it is evident from the record that the plaintiff has withheld some documents which are material for the adjudication of the case and there was no explanation offered by the plaintiff in not filing those documents. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff that the documents were intentionally withheld.
34.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to show that Exs-A5 and A6 sale deeds coupled with ExA4 allotment proceedings were tainted by fraud. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of cancellation of sale deeds as prayed for.
Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of
the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against defendants 1, 2, 9, 10, 15 and 16 as prayed for in respect of the plaint schedule properties?
35.As per the Plaintiff Authority the plaint schedule plots are not peg- marked on the ground and the layout is yet to be developed, as such, the plaint schedule plots cannot be identified on the ground. Therefore the question of Defendants 9, 10, 15 and 16 being in possession of the plaint schedule plots do not arise. As per defendants 9, 10, 15 and 16 they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule plots ever since the date purchased by them.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 27
36.This Court while discussing Issue No.1 came to the conclusion that the sale deeds in respect of the plaint schedule plots cannot be canceled. The plaintiff has not let in any evidence to show that the plaint schedule plots are not identifiable on ground. Thus, the recitals of the Sale Deeds,
dated:18.05.2010 executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 vide Doc. Nos.
1465/2010 and 1466/2010 registered with Sub Registrar, Madhurawada, to the effect that possession of plaint schedule plot was delivered to defendants 1 and 2 cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, prima-facie case and balance of convenience are not in favour of the Plaintiff Authority, as such, the question of irreparable loss being caused to the plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.
Accordingly, this Issue is answered against the Plaintiff Authority and in
favour of the Defendants.
ISSUE NO.3
To what relief?
In view of the findings arrived by this Court in Issues 1 and 2 the suit is liable to be dismissed.
37. In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 06th day of May, 2026.
II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Visakhapatnam.
Fair. Judgment
OS. 1212/2015
II ACJC(SD):VSP 28
Appendix of evidence
No. of witnesses examined for
Plaintiff: Defendants:
P.W.1: D. Laxma ReddyDW1: Sontenam Anuradha P.W.2: B. Bhavani Das DW2: Mandapati Bharathi
No. of documents marked for
Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 is the authorized letter dated 19.06.2024 issued by the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA, Visakhapatnam in favour of PW1.
Ex.A2 is the attested copy of delivery receipt dated 13.12.2005 executed by the MRO, Visakhapatnam (Rural).
Ex.A3 is the compared copy of representation dated 20.04.2010 submitted by defendants 1 and 2 to the Vice Chairman, VUDA.
Ex.A4 is the compared copy of allotment proceedings vide RC No. 11693/A/07/1-1, dated 10.05.2010.
Ex.A5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 in favour of D1 and D2 in respect of Plot No 233 of Rushikonda.
Ex.A6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 in favour of D1 and D2 in respect of Plot NO. 244 of Rushikonda.
Ex.A7 is the compared copy of report dated 12.03.2012 addressed to the State Government.
Ex.A8 is the GORT No. 341 of MA & UD (H2) dated 21.03.2012.
Ex.A9 is the compared copy of resolution No. 5 of VMRDA board authority
dated 05.08.2013.
Ex.A10 is the show cause notice dated 23.09.2013 issued to the defendants.
ExA11 is the attested copy of proceedings of the Vice Chairman, dated 05.07.2014 canceling the allotment of plots.
Defendants:
ExB1 is the certified copy or registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 bearing Document No. 3947/2010 in the name of D15 and D16.
II ACJ (SD):: VSP.
Fair. Judgment